Harman defends positive discrimination plans
Thursday, 26 June 2008
The Equality Minister defended plans to encourage firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.
The new Equalities Bill is also expected to force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to make the pay gap between men and women more transparent.
Responding to criticism that the plans could discriminate against white men, Ms Harman said "you don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward".
The minister told GMTV: "Most women are going out to work and they are just as committed to their jobs - the money that they earn is important to the household budget so they should be paid fairly.
"Yet listen to this figure - if you are a woman working part-time you get 40% less per hour on average than a man working full-time.
"Now either this is because women are not up to the job or else there is discrimination against them. You can't challenge discrimination when it's kept swept under the carpet.
"I think there's a lot of resentment at the unfairness against women. They are not being given the facts."
She added: "There might be controversy but you don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward."
The Bill, details of which were being outlined today, will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age.
Ministers want to stop elderly people being patronised by doctors following complaints of pensioners being fobbed off by GPs and denied health, travel and car insurance.
Although age discrimination will be outlawed in the provision of goods and services, doctors will still be able to refuse older patients treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reasons to do so.
It is thought that the Bill will underpin a culture change which will put ageism on a par with racism.
The new legislation is aimed at tackling "harmful" age discrimination, and not banning systems which have benefits for the elderly, such as free bus travel.
The law is not expected to affect companies like Club 18-30 which only sell goods to customers of a certain age.
Ministers hope the Bill will promote a new era of openness on pay following pressure from trade unions for mandatory pay audits to make sure women are not receiving less money than men for doing the same job.
The Bill will also introduce rights for breastfeeding mothers to feed their babies in public.
Liberal Democrat youth and equality spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone said: "If the Government genuinely wants to tackle equality it must do more to end the growing discrepancy between the rules on pay for the public and private sector.
"Without compulsory pay audits for the private sector these proposals will represent a very real victory for the hawks in the cabinet.
"Public sector equality rights are fast becoming an ivory tower that private sector employees can only dream of.
"A few tick-box questionnaires for Government suppliers on their equality policy are going to do little to change the day-to-day opportunities for the 20 million people who work in the private sector."
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
129 Comments
It is hard to comment without knowing more. But as a minority group person (gay) I am concerned this law might allow more employers to specify groups they will favour and can argue fit the job: so, they might state that heterosexual orientation is preferable for working with families - as well some work in faith based organisations already allowed an opt out (causing much distress).
Indeed, unless the law specifies the gender / age / ethnicity sexuality to be treated positivelyt, surely this law could be used to justift (anti-feminiine) sexism, (anti older) ageism (antigay) heterosexism etc.
It sounds a potential minefield - play & pay time for lawyers?
Posted by Steve | 29.06.08, 21:14 GMT
by the way post 29 06 08 09:26 im steve t noticed another steve posting why are u all arguing with each other we all have the right to post our opinions surely the subject is the positive discrimination bill not if your single or a sexist
Posted by steve t | 29.06.08, 10:03 GMT
surely this is a backward step i agree same pay for the same job no matter what your gender we are all humans and MUST have the same rights i guess it wont stop there what next most people have lost faith in this government i know i have what did oliver cromwell say GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE I HAVE REMOVED A KING AND PUT IN A TYRANT how many times must he have turned wake up parliament and serve the people and not yourselves
Posted by steve | 29.06.08, 09:26 GMT
Wasn't doesn't Harriet Harman change her surname to Harperson. Surely she must consider her name to be sexist and offensive.
I am really awfully sorry Harriet for being born white, male and in this country. I do feel really guilty about it, but i am sorry there is nothing I can do about it. I guess all you can do is keep on discriminating against me and my like
Posted by mark l | 27.06.08, 21:41 GMT
I wonder what the young British men who died in the trenches of Europe for our freedom would make of this.
That laws would be proposed to encourage discrimination against their male ancestors.
This kind of social profiling is Fascism by a different name.
Posted by Mike | 27.06.08, 16:02 GMT
I watched Harriet Harman defend this policy on BBC Parliament.
Conservative backbenchers rightly criticised the idea 'positive discrimination', but I heard not one peep of disapproval from anyone on the Labour benches.
Even if they want to tow the party line, it seemed outrageous that nobody in Harman's party expressed even minor worries about it.
Even the LibDems were in favour of this idea, or at least their 'equalities spokesperson' was.
Truly a new low in British politics.
Posted by Duncan Schofield | 27.06.08, 12:53 GMT
Does this government really have no conception of how divisive their proactive equality agenda is? They seem hellbent on drawing lines between and indoctrinating people who in real life maybe, just maybe, want to be valued on their own merits and actually don't want to be placed in competing groups. Just look at the way pupils in state schools these days are simply regarded as representatives of groups in an equality-driven social engineering experiment. Grouped drones. Oversimplyfy everyone and everything then divide and rule, I guess. I can't believe I'm considering voting Conservative at the next election. I'll certainly never again consider voting for Labour.
Posted by Lucy | 27.06.08, 12:09 GMT
I think when Tony Blair said "We are all middle-class now", he was talking about NuLabour.
Also, I am a shortarsed, spectacle wearing, underclass, estranged(?) father.
Im constantly being discriminated against - when am I going to see some equality ?
When I was 18 , I was on the streets, how good it felt when I was told I wasn't getting any help because "as a white man, I had more than enough privileges"
I think alot of these feminists have father issues.
Posted by WhippingBoy | 27.06.08, 05:47 GMT
Gentlemen, ladies, these comments have (mostely) restored my faith in British spirit. I agree with much of what you say (except for 'Sara' who apparently 'works in a hedge fund' (HAHA).) The leaders of this country are bent on the UK's self-destruction, aided by the highly vocal, though in a minority, politically correct. There is no freedom of speech (watch out you don't get arrested, a fate which may soon befall two of our most eloquent and celebrated writers, Amis and McEwen) and freedom of thought is being curtailed with all this relenteless indoctrination (just look at the kids under 25 to see the result of brainwashing - they think the state the country is in is natural). All the people who can will be emigrating; that is certainly my plan. Harman's policy is a sick joke. England is over. We will be a diaspora as all the illegals of the world come and take it over. What used to be accomplished by force (eg by Vikings on longboats) is being handed over to them willingly.
Posted by margot | 27.06.08, 01:24 GMT
'LS' tries to portray himself\herself as a voice of impartial reasoning - in his\her efforts to correct OTHERS perceived bias he\she end up revealing his\hers instead! I say this because it is hardly a secret that in fact married women are quite capable of intitiating extra marital affairs and in fact it is women that are the ones most likely to file for divorce (and since divorce is now 'no fault' she can still expect to be on the receiving end of institutionalised male chivalry in the family courts. i.e. by DEFAULT the house, kids and on top of that alimony and CS for children that ex hubby will be lucky if he gets to see even at weekends). The more I read LS's words the more he\she sounds like 'Sara' - presenting anecdotal 'evidence' as if it trumps reality at the social scale is not only small minded it is also somewhat moronic.
Posted by Phil Lewis | 27.06.08, 01:19 GMT
129 Comments