Not all good ideas make the grade. Hover cars, that dream of youth, have still to take off and the BBC has cancelled my suggested Tolkien-based detective series, Midsommer Mordor. Pity.

The same can be true in employment law, where not all proposed statutes struggle past the finishing post. Yet, despite concerns about its fitness (and some suspected nobbling by the House of Lords) The Equality Act 2010 was indeed ridden home (if not spared the whip). The act received royal assent on 8 April, a month ahead of the general election, with its main provisions expected to come into force this October. A helpful government guide can be found at www.opsi.gov.uk.

Like most simplifying legislation, the act seems to have required a lot of complex provisions. Curiously, your trainee will find the guide to be 215 pages long, compared with the 198 pages of the act itself. But, please, do not let this put you off having them summarise it for you.

Part of the problem derives from the way the act was created. With body parts drawn from numerous old statutes, it was always going to have a Frankenstein quality. So how did it fare on its final journey? Well, despite some tinkering by the Lords, the act itself passed through the parliamentary underworld relatively unscathed.

The issue now, post-election, is whether all of the provisions will be activated. The enabling legislation is in place, but a number of provisions remain subject to political uncertainty. At the time of writing, none of the ­sections of the act had been formally timetabled, although the principal ­provisions (for example consolidating the existing discrimination legislation into ‘protected characteristics’) are firmly expected to be active by October 2010.

In respect of some of the more ­controversial sections, however, there is less certainty that the switch will be thrown by the new coalition government. In particular, the Government Equalities Office will be anxious about the future of the controversial ‘positive discrimination’ provisions of section 159, which the Conservative Party said would not be brought into force if it were elected. The coalition’s view on this is not clear.

Legal opinion is deeply divided over a more fundamental question: whether the activation or otherwise of this provision will make any difference at all to those outside politics. Under this section it would be possible for an employer to prefer a person (with a ‘protected characteristic’) for recruitment or promotion. However this would be only (a) for the purpose of the individual overcoming a perceived disadvantage, or participating in an activity in which their group is underrepresented, and (b) where they are ‘as qualified’ as the comparator to be recruited or promoted (whatever that means). Most significantly, the section only permits such positive discrimination – it does not require it.

Given these obstacles, it is hard to see section 159 having any great practical impact on employers, even if they were minded to use it. Instead, some believe that this innovative section will end up languishing in the legal ‘gadget graveyard’. There it will be in good company, alongside such underused provisions as section 6 (2) C of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. That earlier section relates to the circumstances in which an employer is to be treated as subjecting a woman (or man) to harassment through the medium of a third party. More specifically, it provides that the employer will be treated as having failed to take such steps to protect the person as would have been reasonably practicable only where the employer knew the woman (or man) had been subject to harassment by a third party ‘on at least two other occasions’. Remember this? No? Well you are in good company. Though potentially useful it just never caught on.

Perhaps it actually wasn’t such a good idea, though not all agree as this provision has been enshrined in section 40 of the 2010 act. In fairness, the new section restates the provision helpfully to clarify that it does not matter whether or not the third party is the same person on each occasion. The victim will be relieved.

Much more promising is the idea of ‘fit notes’. These were introduced in April under the snappily titled Social Security (Medical Evidence) and Statutory Sick Pay (Medical Evidence) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/137). These replace the idea of sick notes in the workplace and are intended to allow the medical practitioner to identify what the employee can actually do when ill (beyond watching Loose Women while on full pay).

They are also designed to allow suggestions as to how the employer could make changes (or ‘adjustments’) to help the employee return to work. The format is prescribed in schedule 1 part II of the regulations and is worth acquainting oneself with.

As an aside, employers will be relieved to know the note must now be written in ink or some ‘other indelible substance’. Blood perhaps?

Fit notes will not normally be allowed for a period of more than three months, unless the employee has refrained from work for at least six months prior to the date of assessment (on a doctor’s advice).

Of particular interest is the recommendation of ‘adjustments’. The form contains a box that sets out adjustments from which the employee may benefit with their employer’s agreement. Not only should the new forms alert a recipient employer to the presence of a disability, but now also perhaps to any reasonable adjustments that may need to be made under what will be section 20 of the act.

The reasonable adjustment provisions themselves are likely to be the subject of regulations, so this promises to be an interesting development, though a decision on such matters remains a legal rather than a purely medical question.

Another interesting idea (a good one if you benefit) has come in the form of the Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010 (and associated regulations). These will introduce transferable paternity leave in relation to children due on or after 3 April 2011 (with matching rights for parents of adopted children).

The rights will apply where a mother has not utilised her full maternity leave entitlement and effectively will allow fathers the right to take up to six months additional paternity leave (with pay where the leave is taken during a period in which the mother would have received maternity pay).

The right, which will be of particular interest to couples where the mother is a higher earner than the father, may in theory lead to a significant adjustment in the balance of early parenting, though many are sceptical.

It will of course equally apply to same-sex and civil partners.

So much then for the pre-election form of the employment law handicap. What now in this new ‘blue-yellow’ age? Few would argue that the Labour government was good for business as the sheer volume of legislation kept employment lawyers extremely busy during its tenure. In short, our branch of the profession had a very good war. It would be nice then to have a feel for what we can expect from Nick and Dave in the months to come. The announcement that they are now taking requests for laws to reform is at least intriguing. Don’t tempt me!

Darren Clayton, Doyle Clayton, London