New equality law will lead to more Tribunals, warns expert

Stephen Martin
Member - 8 posts

Here are the words of Tom Bulford, who writes on financial matters, and expressses my feelings and sentiment far better than I could.

Why is it that every time I read a policy document from this government of ours I have an overwhelming urge to buy a one way ticket to New Zealand? Could it be the patronising tone, the underlying assumption that ministers know what is good for all of us, the incorrect use of the English language, the contradictions, the platitudes… or the thought of all that public money that has been wasted devising such rubbish and the yet more that will be wasted as countless public servants sit around committee room tables working out how to turn it into action?

It is all of these, and more. Having made the mistake of reading ‘Framework for a Fairer Future – The Equality Bill’ on Friday evening I have been thoroughly depressed by it all weekend. I have read all forty pages of it, but you do not need to get beyond page one before the urge to emigrate wells up. ‘Everyone has the right to be treated fairly and to have the opportunity to fulfil their potential,’ the report starts, ‘but equality is not just right in principle.’

Another load of meaningless political drivel

Well, actually it is only ‘right in principle’ because equality is a principle and can never be anything else. If what the government wants to explain is that it will formulate policies that are based upon this principle then it has the full range of the English language at its disposal to do so correctly.

Aside from misuse of our native language, this document is full of the sort of trite statements that flow effortlessly from the mouths of politicians but which, lacking any basis in fact, are utterly meaningless. For example: ‘Equality is necessary for society – an unequal society can’t be at ease with itself, an equal society gives social cohesion.’ I suppose this is what Mao Tse-Tung had in mind when he tried to create an equal society in China.

Or this: ‘Equality is necessary for our economy – a modern economy thrives in a culture of equality which brings employers the widest labour pool, which sees all participate in the labour market rather than being marginalized and excluded, and recognises that diversity makes us outward facing and helps us to compete in a global economy.’

Harriet Harman, whose smiling face is on the cover of this document, may like to think this is true but it clearly is not. The most successful economies in the world at the moment are probably China and India where hard nosed business imperatives rule unhindered by red tape and government sponsored social engineering.

Make no mistake, ‘Framework for a Fairer Future’ is all about social engineering. Harriet Harman will not be content until women earn as much as men, and until employers offer jobs to old people, the fairer sex and to ethnic minorities in direct proportion to their representation in the whole population. The underlying assumption has it that because these groups do not do so well in the labour market as white males, then ipso facto they are discriminated against. This is not necessarily the case but this paper does not even acknowledge the possibility that there might be other causes of inequality, let alone attempt to analyse them.

Harriet Harman is determined to use the public sector as the tool of social engineering. Public bodies will have a new ‘equality duty’ which will, we are told, help them ‘to focus their efforts on outcomes, rather than on producing plans and documents.’ What this means is that the numbers must show that public bodies increase their employment of women, ethnic minorities and the disabled and there are vague threats that legal action might follow if this does not materialize. And in a nasty, insidious manoeuvre, Harriet Harman is not content for public bodies alone to behave in this way. She wants them only to do business with private sector firms that also engage in social engineering. So private sector suppliers to the public sector can expect to receive forms asking them for details about the ethnic background et al of their staff. This is a disgraceful interference into the private sector, and yet another burden upon business people.

What is really sickening about this document is Harriet Harman’s refusal to acknowledge the truth of what she is proposing, and the way in which she tries to make out that she is doing everybody a favour and that all will benefit. So far as the public sector is concerned we are invited to believe that the increase in the proportion of ethnic minority and disabled people in workforces ‘has improved customer satisfaction’. While in the private sector ‘businesses will increasingly recognise the advantages that they can gain from improving their performance on equality so that they can attract and retain talent from the widest possible pool and tap into new markets……. There are clear benefits of workforce diversity…in attracting new business, understanding customers’ needs and filling skills gaps.’ If this is really the case then why not allow commercial self-interest to take its course and achieve these desired outcomes obviating the need for Government interference?

This contradiction is typical of a policy document that is so full of holes that if I was Harriet Harman I would be ashamed to put my name to it. We are told that ‘in the construction industry, 2.5% of workers are from ethnic minorities, whereas the average for the workforce as a whole is 8%.’ OK, so there must be some industries in which representation of ethnic minorities is higher than 8% – does that mean that they are under pressure to employ more whites? Of course not.

And there is another contradiction that is central to the whole debate. It is simply not possible to discriminate in favour of one group without simultaneously discriminating against another. The extract that seems to have attracted most attention is this:

‘The Bill will extend positive action so that employers can take under-representation into account when selecting between two equally qualified candidates.’

Why doesn’t Harman say what she means?

So if you are short of women in your business, and you have a choice between a man and a woman to fill one job, you can pick the woman on the basis that they are underrepresented in your company. The government depicts this as ‘positive discrimination’ but of course the other side of this coin is that somebody – presumably a while male – is being discriminated against and no amount of pussy-footing around the issue can deny this.

Harriet Harman is too gutless to say what she really means. She says that ethnic minorities ‘should get the same job prospects as white people’ and that all should have ‘the opportunity to succeed’. But this is a free country. Everybody already has the same job prospects and the same opportunity to succeed. What does not happen though is that everybody, black or white, old or young, male or female, able bodied or not able bodied, gets the same job or succeeds to an equal degree. Great! This is exactly why most people like living in the UK. What a shame that Harriet Harman is too plain stupid to understand this.

Bruce Manning
Member - 11 posts

Oh dear! For an apparently erudite and articulate mature male, the commentator is being incredibly naive. Just to pick up on on point, and I quote: "But this is a free country. Everybody already has the same job prospects and the same opportunity to succeed". That is simply not true. Just consider one aspect, job applications. How many applicants are rejected at the cv scan stage because of clues about ethnicity, age, gender, social background, health? If you don't get an interview, you don't have the same opportunities. Criticise the Government and individual ministers by all means, that's your democratic right, but endorsing bald statements as facts when they are clearly not is best left to politicians......

janet burton
Member - 49 posts

The Equality Bill attempts to ensure we all have equality. But as it cannot legislate on peoples opinions it will not succeed.
Whether or not a person can discriminate if they want to to equalise their workforce, or for any other reason, there is no-one who can disprove (or prove) which of two candidates is the better for the job, assuming they have the same qualifications. No-one can prove or disprove that one did better at an interview - except the person interviewing.
You cannot prove or disprove if one case of opinion uses discrimination. It is only with a series of cases that trends emerge - otherwise we move into the position where you have to choose the minority every time for fear of being thought of as discriminatory - which is intimidation.
We need equality of opportunity and freedom of choice - which means focussing on education, schooling and careers development. And that needs money, not equality bills. Schools need funding to help children who cannot speak English. They need funding to cope with disabled pupils. They need extra teachers and classrooms to reduce class sizes, particularly in deprived areas. They need better after-school facilities to support working parents. Students need funding to support them through University. In this country education is once again becoming a major class divide, as parental income is the major factor in deciding whether - or where - your child goes on to further education.

Bruce Manning
Member - 11 posts

.....and that doesn't begin to address another related issue, of the need for parents to be better supported so that they can retrieve the apparently lost values of parenting, eg provide standards for children to live up to. And while we are banging on about our rights, perhaps someone will consider their responsibilities as well.....

Perhaps we should look again at the question from David Stanley which began this thread, which no-one has yet addressed. Is the practice of employing mostly Eastern European workers discriminatory against British workers?

Jeffrey Thomas
Member - 14 posts

In the drive to create equal opportunities there is one fundumental principle that supporters of this bill don't seem to understand. If they do understand it then it is conveniently ignored and they constantly spurt out utter rubbish to defend it.

The principle of equal opportunities is to provide everyone with an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY regardless of whatever even though in life people have differing abilities. This bill clearly discriminates against individuals in favour of others. In effect it is NOT acceptable to discriminate against certain politically correct groups of individuals (the so called victims of society) but it is acceptable to discriminate against others that are not fashionable and not perceived to be victims. In this case it is the white male. How can anyone with the slightest intelligence call this equality? It just does not make any sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt that those who support this bill will spurt out surveys and statistics to support the reasons for the bill and the proposals. But there is actually little evidence to support their view and they ignore the actual legitimate reasons for what actually takes place in society. This bill will only serve to divide society.