Read more of Frances Gibb's exclusive online columns

The equality laws in England and Wales are an impenetrable thicket. There are 35 Acts, 52 statutory instruments, 32 codes of practice and 16 EC directives — 116 pieces in all covering 4,000 pages. If laid end to end, the Equality and Human Rights Commission points out, that would be the length of ten football pitches or height of 243 double-decker buses.

It would take about two-and-a-half days and two nights to read all the documents. Not only is the law inaccessible, it is out of date. It is also confusing and inconsistent. There are three different definitions of direct discrimination and four of indirect discrimination.

So, as the European Commission points out, an employer might be liable for harassment in one scenario; but not liable for exactly the same behaviour in another. The burden of proof will shift to the employer in some circumstances, but not in others. And if an employer instructs or pressures a member of staff to discriminate, he or she may be liable — but may not be.

This week Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, will unveil ministers’ plans for a single Equality Bill, bringing together all the legislation on discrimination of the past 35 years — pay, race, disability — and also age and gender orientation.

It is not just a tidying-up Bill. It is hoped that it will create a culture where discrimination on grounds of age, along with disability, religion or sexual orientation, are all on a par with race or sex discrimination.

Already the Bill is being hailed as a “grey” charter, protecting pensioners from being denied NHS treatment, credit cards, travel insurance or even care hire because of their age.

The draft Bill is also expected to tackle the pay gap between men and women, forcing private firms and public-sector organisations alike to be more open on pay. Figures just released from the Equalities’ Office show that the pay gap between men and women at the Treasury, for instance, is 26 per cent against a national average of 12 per cent for full-time workers. At the Ministry of Defence the gap is 22 per cent. Ms Harman is understood to have lost a Cabinet battle for compulsory pay audits of private firms.

Claims over both age discrimination and equal pay are increasingly clogging up the tribunals. In the past year there has been a 115 per cent increase in equal pay claims brought as hundreds of thousands of women council employees pursue equal pay claims dating back several years.

Last week the Court of Appeal upheld the right of employees dismissed on the ground of age to bring proceedings against their employers. Anna Johns, 72, a former customer service worker at a newspaper and magazine wholesaler, was subjected to compulsory retirement against her will in March last year.

Her claim for age discrimination and unfair dismissal, in a case backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was struck out by a tribunal as having no reasonable prospects of success — on the ground that a forthcoming test case in the European Court of Justice would also fail. But Ms Johns went on to win.

John Wadham, legal director at the commission, said that the outcome in the European case was eagerly awaited. “In the meantime, it is unacceptable to us to have judges’ presumptions that effectively deny people the right to make their case to the court.”

Liesel Whitfield, from the law firm Irwin Mitchell, who acted with the barrister Adam Solomon for Ms Johns, hailed the decision as a “fantastic result”. The existing laws on age discrimination, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, should not be viewed by employers as a foolproof way to dismiss employees

Meanwhile, on July 2, those regulations will be put properly to the test. In a landmark case affecting millions of Britons, the European Court of Justice will be asked if it is legal for private UK firms to retire people on or after their 65th birthday as a matter of course. Despite the present age discrimination laws, such dismissals are legal — if a set procedure is followed.

The case is being brought by Heyday, part of Age Concern. Dorothy Henderson, a partner with Travers Smith, the City law firm, said: “Heyday is arguing that ministers got it wrong when they implemented the EU directive on which our age discrimination rules are based.

“Currently employers can retire staff on or after their 65th birthday, safe in the knowledge that they won’t face claims for compensation. All that could change if Heyday wins and compensation claims by employees forced to retire, currently on hold, could be given the go-ahead.”

As well as extending rights, the new Bill is likely to have as equal an emphasis on widening opportunities — a key shift in approach, if it is to command widespread support and not go the way of the misperceived Human Rights Act. A spokesman for the commission said: “This is not just about ‘fixing’ minorities. This is about releasing new talent and opening up the job market in previously untapped areas.

“In two years,” she added, “just 20 per cent of the workforce will be made up of white, able-bodied men in full-time work. We must unlock the diverse talent that will be our future workforce. Modern legislation has a valuable role to play in setting the standard, making safe the principles of fairness and decent behaviour for employer to employee.” A new Act, the commission hopes, will move from prohibition (“you must not”) to permission (“you may”) and to positive encouragement (“you should”).

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers