Tories struggle with new equalities legislation

Today the equalities bill has been published, and whatever else you might think, the scale of Harriet Harman's ambition is striking. She wants every private company that does business with government - 30 per cent - to reveal the the scale of the difference in pay between male and female employees before they get any contracts. It's hard to see this working in practice, and I'd be interested to see if it survives the Parliamentary process.

Fascinating to watch the Tory response, however, as it completely exposed the gulf between modernisers and traditionalists. Despite a few quibbles here and there, Theresa May and the front bench team gave their strong backing to the proposals. This left several backbenchers "foaming", as one Labour MP shouted across the chamber.

Of the seven Tory backbenchers in the chamber, two were in favour - Paul Goodman and John Bercow and five - Philip Davies, both Wintertons, Graham Brady , Angela Watkinson, were, in Bercow's words, the Taleban tendency. Ann Winterton, who hasn't had the strongest of backing from Tory high command recently, saying "I'm completely at odds with my own party because I’ve never believed in
positive discrimination" while Philip Davies called it the "most politically correct bill ever from the most politically correct minister."

The Labour left were highly disciplined ahead of the 1997 general election. The right managed to keep shtum for the Tories during last September's conference. So warning lights should be whirring over the division between the Tory front and back benches.

Comments

[John M Ward]

"Warning lights should be whirring..." ? What an odd concept!

For what it is worth, I am not in favour of any form of so-called "positive discrimination" ever, under any circumstances. To me, that is always but always wrong -- no exceptions.

If employers aren't able to choose the best person for any particular job, then they might very well go under -- especially small and medium-size enterprises.

I'm not in the business of hampering our businesses' success through forcing (or even encouraging, which is the first step towards compulsion) them to take on personnel who fit my own agenda (if I had one!) and no-one with integrity would do so either, on any pretext, however convenient and easy to sell to the public and media

[Recusant]

But of course there is no gender pay gap. What there is is a maternity pay gap. In fact amongst employees under 30, the pay gap works in favour of women, and lesbians earn above average.

The truth is that deciding to have children takes a big chunk out of any chance of maintaining the same pay rates as those who don't or can't.

[Recusant]

But of course there is no gender pay gap. What there is is a maternity pay gap. In fact amongst employees under 30, the pay gap works in favour of women, and lesbians earn above average.

The truth is that deciding to have children takes a big chunk out of any chance of maintaining the same pay rates as those who don't or can't.

[Bob]

Sam writes: "She wants every private company that does business with government - 30 per cent - to reveal the the scale of the difference in pay between male and female employees before they get any contracts. It's hard to see this working in practise [sic]."

Why can't it work in practice? It's a simple requirement for a statement of pay differentials, easily calculated. If the company wants to do business with the government, it'll do the calculation. If it's the law, it'll comply. What's the problem? The companies will get used to it.

[Bob]

Sam writes: "She wants every private company that does business with government - 30 per cent - to reveal the the scale of the difference in pay between male and female employees before they get any contracts. It's hard to see this working in practise [sic]."

Why can't it work in practice? It's a simple requirement for a statement of pay differentials, easily calculated. If the company wants to do business with the government, it'll do the calculation. If it's the law, it'll comply. What's the problem? The companies will get used to it.

[Clive]

The details of these proposals result in positive discrimination against white males.

That is just fact not spin. And any discrimination is wrong, because what is 'positive' today can be used for other 'positives' tomorrow.

So the appropriate response to this is to welcome the intention but to resist the discriminatory elements.

Like so much Labour legislation the unintended consequences are more problematic than the problem it is supposed to be addressing.

This legislation will drive data underground and increase the resentment of the very people already feeling alienated from our polity.

In the meantime the real inequalities are rather different. The white male is becoming a standard under achiever in education.

Old Labour problem, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator rather than enable everyone to pull themselves up to better things.

[Chuck Unsworth]

Down in Quality Control we prefer to think of warning lights as 'flashing'.