Letters to the Editor

STRONG BELIEFS

Makbool Javaid's comment on the EU Employment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC Employment speaks for many knowledgeable groups and individuals in its criticism of the government for choosing to introduce the directive under the European Communities Act 1972, rather than formulating primary legislation (see [2002] Gazette, 12 December, 14).

Without parliamentary scrutiny, the law will be weak, ambiguous, piecemeal and even counter productive.

However, assuming a miracle occurs and collective pressure manages to convince the government to debate and draft the legislation properly in Parliament, there are still many fundamental problems with the individual elements of the directive.

Mr Javaid focuses on one.

He considers there is a 'major hole in the regulations: there is no definition of either religion or belief.' In its detailed response to Barbara Roche's consultation paper, Toward Equality and Diversity, the Discrimination Law Association was of the opposite view.

'The association considers that it [is] not necessary or desirable to have a definition of the term religion or belief.

We believe that the directive will have to be read in line with the article 9 ECHR cases that are not limited.

However, the association considers there may be an advantage to having a list of examples of religions and beliefs, perhaps in a code of practice.'

The government counts on opposing views from respondent organisations to cancel each other out, leaving the Department of Trade and Industry free to push through its own agenda.

We have seen this happen in other legislation, leaving watered down, inferior bills.

It is for that reason that I urge Mr Javaid, and all those with strong views on the directive, to join the Discrimination Law Association and debate the issues within the profession.

It is important that the legal profession can present a united front on the most important issues.

Without this show of strength from one of the most important sectors of society, the UK legislation will reflect the unworkable and poorly drafted directive when what is needed is a consistent, simple and clear Single Equality Act.

Joyce Glasser, College of Law graduate, London

BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS

Your feature 'Not in our backyard' accurately reflects a wide divergence in thinking on anti-social behaviour orders between some local authority lawyers and most human rights lawyers (see [2002] Gazette, 19 December, 12).

The latter have found it troubling that criminal sanctions can be applied to conduct which, but for the civil ASBO proceedings, would not constitute an offence.

In some cases, the ASBO works as a banning order or even comes close to imposing house arrest for lengthy periods of time - measures which we generally deplore in other jurisdictions.

However, your article contains one inaccuracy.

The standard of proof required for an ASBO is not the balance of probabilities, but is now the stricter requirement of beyond reasonable doubt.

This was the decision of the House of Lords in R (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court (2002) The Times, 17 October.

Clearly the Lords took the human rights perspective in this case.

Jane Hickman, Hickman Rose, London

LEAVING LONDON

While I accept and agree with much of what was said about private client work in your recent article (see [2003] Gazette, 16 January, 22), I refute any implication that London is the only place that sophisticated client advice can be obtained.

We are a Salisbury-based firm with a thriving national and international client base.

For many of our clients we act as the focal point for their worldwide legal and tax affairs.

When many large London firms shed their private client departments in the 1980s and 1990s, much of that work flowed out of London, and Wilsons has since built on this to develop a sizeable and enviable client list.

Indeed, we work closely with several City firms, providing that very capability that they have now lost, as well as with UK and offshore banks and trust companies.

James Trafford, Wilsons, Salisbury

LITERACY TEST

Readers might be interested in this extract from a client's letter, which describes a conversation which she had with her landlord's surveyor and then commented: 'she said this conversation was without pride and prejudice'.

Is it a question of being literate in Liverpool or merely the fact that TV gets everywhere?

CJ Morton, Husband Forwood Morgan, Liverpool