Graham Kirby on why the UK's Equality Bill is good news for everyone – even white men

As Gordon Brown at this year’s Labour Party conference praised the proposed Equality Bill as one which will change Britain forever, the BBC’s cameras panned in on a beaming (and apparently “brilliant”) Minister for Equality Harriet Harman. What the camera did not (in fact could not) capture was the rustle around Middle England as the hated Harman once again became the focus of grievance.

The more technologically advanced logged onto their favourite blogs to have their opinions and prejudices confirmed by their fellow bloggers; but General Bumsore (of Tunbridge Wells), his eyes bulging with a ferocious passion his wife had not seen since their wedding night, threw aside his copy of The Daily Telegraph to snatch his shot gun from the dresser, took quick aim at the television set and fired off a round of grapeshot, shattering the screen. “Damn pinko nonsense,” he cried. Mrs Bumsore, looking over The Daily Mail, replied, “You’ve got egg on your tie, dear,” and made a mental note to order another new television from John Lewis.

The politics of grievance is an unseemly art that is generally best left to extreme-right parties but the mythological cause of the discriminated-against white man is one that those noisy tribunes of the “silent majority”, Simon Heffer and Quentin Letts, are predictably happy to take up. For the great shame about the Equality Bill is that, so far, it has merely polarised the debate about “positive action” rather than set in motion a discussion about the position of equality and equality of opportunity. Are minorities discriminated against? And if so, then why is it still so when as a society we are becoming more accepting? The right has given loud cry against anything which might devalue “meritocracy” but has not asked how institutional fairness can be promoted.

This polarisation has led to a number of myths and misassumptions about the import of the bill. For a start it is not about imposing equality on companies and organisations nor is it about discrimination against white males. It is not about giving preferential treatment to anyone. It does not strike against the concept of meritocracy and is not unusually cumbersome in its requirements on business. One of the key requirements is transparency to both the public and private sectors, that “sunshine provides the best disinfectant” (to borrow a phrase) against discrimination and allows future governments to chart and target progress towards ending discrimination. Nothing to argue about so far.

However The Mail has made claim that the equality bill will “effectively re-introduce discrimination” and Tory MP Philip Davies asked: “How can you justify in an Equality Bill having something that allow gross and appalling distortion of the legislation’s intent. All it will necessitate is for employers to “consider the diverse needs and requirements of their workforce, and the communities they serve when developing employment policies and when planning services.” Nota bene: consider. As Harman said in the House at Second Reading: "Currently, if a vacancy arises and the employer is faced with two equally qualified candidates, one a man and one a woman, the employer cannot actually say, 'Right, we’ve got two equally qualified people for this job, but I’m going to take you, because you’re a woman and I want to diversify my management team'. [The Bill], however, will allow for addressing under-representation where they so chose.” (my italics) What is not meritocratic about that?

Moreover, what Harman could have said was: “Right we’ve got two equally qualified candidates for this position as a primary school teacher but I’m going to take you, because you’re a man and I want to diversify my team.” At the moment just 15% of primary schools are men. Despite a 20% growth in the number of male applicants over the last five years, in 2005 the figure was – yes, you guessed it - 15%. Think of any role where men are currently in a minority and suddenly the Equality Act will make it legal to consider appointing a man instead of a woman to tackle their under-representation. Those who feel that white, heterosexual men are discriminated against should, in fact, (if they believe what they say) support not oppose this legislation.

Also, would not more police officers from minority backgrounds in London (currently 8.8% according to the Home Office) help the general community relations within the capital (ethnic minority population 29%)? And before we talk about genocide, remember the bill asks organisation to consider the needs of the communities they serve. In other words this is not political correctness gone made – with white men thrown out of company boardrooms in favour of women and ethnic minority – but instead companies will in future aim to reflect their clients and users. It is not exactly unreasonable and extremely incremental. Moreover the bill goes beyond gender and ethnicity (always a preoccupation) to tackle discrimination on the basis of age and importantly class. Far from a move away from meritocracy, it is fundamental in the creation of a fairer and socially mobile society. While it does not tackle the economics of poverty and alienation, it will tackle some of the institutional barriers that exist.

The Equality Bill has been lampooned or lauded as “socialism in one clause” – part of a great tradition of social progress advanced by Labour since Harold Wilson’s government – but it is far more nuanced than that. Criticised as “statist” and cumbersome, it reduces nine equality acts and one thousand statutory instruments to a single piece of legislation. Studies have repeatedly shown how diversity in management structures – and that extends beyond gender and ethnicity to age, class, education – leads to more creativity and innovation. Furthermore societies such as Scandinavian ones that are more equal tend to have lower crime rates. The Equality Act tackles these issues without discriminating against the best qualified candidate in employment situations.

A simplistic characterisation of left and right is equality and state versus meritocracy and the individual. While most of the arguments against the Equality Bill come from a individualistic point of view, ConservativeHome’s Tim Montgomerie has pointed out that there is a chasm between the between the two stances that you could define as society. It is easy to agree: without getting too Machiavellian, there is something more important than the individual. The shrillness and over-reaction in the debate surrounding positive action in this case masks the sensible radicalism of the proposals that, if anything, do not go far enough. What could fit within this chasm better than an act that allows rather than requires, and that promotes openness rather than entrenching secrecy in organisations? It is in many ways indicative of how the left’s thinking has changed over the past few years and will continue to change if facing a Cameron government.

And what about the Bumsores? Well, their new television arrived just in time to see David Cameron announce all-women shortlists...