The Equality Bill

ePolitix.com Stakeholders comment on the news that Harriet Harman has published the government's proposals for an Equality Bill, to be introduced in the next parliamentary session.

Stakeholder response: Age Concern and Help the Aged

Age Concern's director general, Gordon Lishman, said: “The government’s decision to use the Equality Bill to outlaw age discrimination is fantastic news. It sends a clear signal that ageism should be taken as seriously as any other form of discrimination. This legislation will transform the lives of millions of older people by giving them the same opportunities to participate in society as everyone else.
 
"The government must now move very quickly to set out the detail and provide a clear timetable for action. Gordon Brown has recently spoken of his vision of a Britain without prejudice – today’s announcement will go a long way to achieving this."

Michael Lake, director general of Help the Aged, said: "For a long time, the government would not accept that age discrimination was a problem. Now it has, and so the timetable for action is absolutely crucial.

"Older people have been waiting for far too long to be treated as equals – and they shouldn’t have to wait for these rights any longer. Legislation must be enacted without delay so older people can be on a truly equal footing as soon as possible."

Stakeholder response: Association of British Insurers.

Nick Starling, the ABI’s director of general insurance and health, said: "Insurers agree that unfair discrimination on the basis of age is wrong. That is why they do not practice it. The government, organisations that represent older people and the insurance industry agree that insurance premiums should reflect the risk presented by individual consumers.

"We are engaged in discussions with the government on the proposed Bill, which we hope will endorse this important principle. Legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, could have the unintended negative consequence of forcing some insurers to withdraw certain products altogether, reducing competition and availability and pushing up prices for all age groups.

"Insurance for older people is available from a range of providers. For example, single trip travel insurance is widely available for older people at fair prices. However, we recognise that some people may need more help to find the most appropriate insurance policies for them. We are working to improve this, and we know that the government and age charities will support our efforts in this area."

Stakeholder response: British Humanist Association

Hanne Stinson, BHA Chief Executive, said, "Humanists are committed to the full implementation of human rights and equality for all and we look forward to working with the Government in the coming months to ensure that the Bill achieves this in practice."

Ms Stinson continued, "We welcome the White Paper which aims to extend and promote equality between different people. However, we must be very careful that some proposals, such as extending positive action in employment and the proposed additional public duty in relation to religion or belief, do not inadvertently increase discrimination against individuals based on actual or perceived affiliation to a group."

"We hope that the new law will also address existing problems of discrimination by religious organisations. Existing UK equality law gives religious groups power to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs in both employment and service provision – even when they are receiving public funding – and this is one inequality that we look to the Government to address."

Stakeholder response: British Retail Consortium

BRC chief Stephen Robertson said: "I am proud of the retail industry’s record on reflecting all parts of the population in its workforce and on developing individuals and nurturing talent. There are nearly three million jobs in UK retailing. The competitive battle to attract the best people means retailers strive to offer attractive deals to the widest possible pool of talent."        

On not requiring grade-by-grade equal pay audits and confining more general pay data publication to the public sector, BRC director general Stephen Robertson said: "The rejection of trade union calls for a legal obligation on all employers to carry out full equal pay audits is very sensible.

"Of course, retailers support the principle of equal pay between the sexes and retail is a sector where gaps are not typically found. Many of our members audit already but requiring businesses to undertake the government's version rather than one suitable for their specific business would be a major headache."

On empowering employment tribunal chairs to make recommendations on companies' human resources practices, British Retail Consortium director general Stephen Robertson said: "Our large members have teams of expert staff. It’s very short-sighted to think a tribunal chair is qualified, or could understand the business sufficiently well, to advise on employment practice in that business.

"Referring tribunal recommendations on to the Equality and Human Rights Commission is unnecessary. An employment tribunal is a legal entity with powers to make awards and to impose punishments. Where an employer has fallen foul of the law they will be penalised. Surely this is enough? - it is in every other legal forum. A separate investigation would be a pointless extra cost burden."

Stakeholder response: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Dianah Worman, CIPD diversity adviser, said: "The UK cannot afford to miss this unique opportunity for radical change in the way unfairness is tackled. This bill seeks to simplify existing legislation which can only be a plus for employers.

"Government now needs to ensure that they spell out exactly how the proposals will function so that employers don't unwittingly fall foul of the law.

"To lead in the diversity field, employers have to deliver legal obligations and implement systemic change in all business practices. This is evidenced in our new research report, Managing Diversity and The Business Case, to be published in September.

"The report sets out the nature of the business case and pulls together a range of findings about its relevance to diversity progress and business performance.

"The CIPD welcomes the move to requiring employers to report average earnings as a step in the right direction to resolving unequal pay. However, employers should be aware that this broad brush approach won't guarantee the absence of individual unfair cases, even if there is no difference in the reported averages.

"Employers will need to rigorously examine how they address unequal pay in their organisations, and ensure they clearly communicate how reward systems structures are managed. This way, employees can judge for themselves if they are being paid fairly. 

"Failing to do this may put organisations at a competitive disadvantage, particularly in light of the rules on public procurement.

"Business should be grateful that government has opted for a light-touch approach to pay equality and not introduced compulsory pay audits. But they should recognise that if appropriate action is not taken to address the equal pay issue, then more legislation may follow.

"We welcome the government's strong leadership position on the introduction of 'balancing measures' as part of the enabling legal framework because they are needed to support the progress of diversity.

"But these will be highly contentious in some quarters and require clear guidance on what the law sets out to do and why. This will be vital  to ensure people understand what they are and their legitimacy to avoid backlash based on false perceptions about them.

"Finally, law on its own is simply not enough. Government needs to engage employers to take action because it makes business sense. They should publish easily accessible practical guidance for employers to follow, and instigate a national education and awareness campaign with signposts to help and support.

"Failing to do this will short-change the UK economy at a time when business needs all the help it can get. Diversity needs to be demystified and good practice communicated down to the grass roots, where a real difference can be made."

Stakeholder response: Chartered Management Institute

Ruth Spellman, chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute, applauded the proposals as "a long-time coming, but a welcome move in the right direction".

"The Institute's research shows that organisations perform more effectively when the workforce reflects a mixed group – across age, gender and race. In a marketplace dominated by skills shortages and increasing levels of global competition, it is important to maximise the talent pool.

"For instance, six-in-ten managers report they have been disadvantaged at work because of their age.

"It is also clear that lack of parity in pay between male and female managers remains an issue. Despite the weight of existing legislation we are not making sufficient progress.

"As our National Management Salary Survey shows, female managers earned an average of £43,571 in 2007 – that's £6,076 less than the male equivalent of £49,647.

"Women are also more likely to resign, which is a cause for concern. If employers allow gender gaps to continue the knowledge gap in UK organisations will be exacerbated at the very time we are trying to challenge the skills crisis.

"We also know that ethnic minority groups feel let down when it comes to skills development, with more Asian and black managers reporting inadequate development than white managers.

"Despite increasing demands for openness and transparency many of the barriers to achieving greater diversity at a senior management level persist. 

"It should be a key concern for employers because they run the risk of wasting a talent pool that is scarce. Put simply, what this talent thrives on is challenge, to grow, and to achieve. And if the challenge and opportunity goes, so will they."