As previously commented upon, the Equality Bill will allow companies and public authorities to discriminate against candidates of equal merit when considering offering people a job base on whether they are 'under-represented'. We all know what that means in the real world - discrimination against men.
A crucial part of the debate took place on 30th June 2009 when there was a debate in the House of Commons' Committee Stage on the crucial clauses - 152 and 153 (clauses near the bottom).
Mark Harper MP (Cons) put down an amendment on clause 153 because it was too vague and too open to 'interpretation'.
The crucial point is that the clause says
(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted.
What Harper said was that the wording should be ‘equally qualified to’ because the current clause in the Bill meant it narrow the remit where positive action could take place. Leading businesses and also the Law Society said it would this would provide a narrower meaning.
He also wanted clause 191 amended which will stop a Minister from making provisions and amendments based on what he/she thinks but on a basis where they can demonstrate.
The crucial part of the debate centred on an example (column 605) where Harper gives an example between people being 'as equally qualified' to do a job which is different to their ability to be 'qualified to' do a job (hard to follow I know). The difference is that two candidates could have an equal degree but there could be a difference in their aptitude.
His amendment would have narrowed the remit in law. He has particular experience in this as a number of his constituents were involved in one of the UK's most scandalous examples of anti-male discrimination ever perpetrated in the UK (Gloucestershire Police 2006).
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the amendment did not gain support from either the Labour Government or the Liberal Democrats. Harper withdrew the amendment.
What it means though now is that even though organisation have raised their concern about the interpretation of 'as qualified as', it leaves it wide open for abuse and wide open for the systematic discrimination of men in employment. Just at a time when more and more men are losing their jobs.
Note 1
Look at the attendance list for evidence gathering at this meeting - any group missing?
Note 2
Look at the debate (column 604) where it is mentioned that Equalities and Human Rights Commission use the fact that primary schools could take positive action to recruit a male teacher because they have so few. The thinnest of fig-leafs and blatantly used as a smokescreen for the Bill's real intention.
Note 3
Not sure why the text layout changed but it still readable (I hope)
Can you explain more on note 1 please. Why are those people there - I'm sure most of us don't' understand the detail of the process. Were they invited to be there or did they just turn up?
Posted by: John Kimble | Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 02:27
They were invited but probably based on the fact they lobbied Parliament.
Posted by: The Editor | Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 10:52
They were invited as experts. they will have known that this stage of the process means people can lobby to be considered experts.
Of course "experts" in gender are usually taken to be women's groups. As with the story about quotas (55%) for Royal Honours the clauses will be used to fill quotas in work. In many respects the Bill's provisions for pay audits (which have exited press notice)will be onerous but ineffective. The pay gap is generated by labour markets. So for instance super feminist Denmark and not at all feminist Italy have similary low "gender pay gaps" largely because neither have much of a "part time" jobs market. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the labour market in the UK to all full time jobs then the "gap" is likely to remain. However establishing quotas in public services will have a quick effect, simply because a sort of covert positive discrimination called "positive action" is well established.
Posted by: Nigel | Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 13:30
I'd say the writer of this blog is way more of any expert than any of the idiots on the list.
Really a shame that men don't any real representation in Parliament.
Posted by: John Kimble | Monday, 20 July 2009 at 01:44