Clause 36
Equality Bill
4:30 pm
This amendment protects job applicants from subliminal discrimination arising from information assumed from an applicant’s name. It also prevents information being made available to people short-listing that reveals whether an applicant has protected characteristic.
On Second Reading, I floated the idea of anonymous applications for jobs. For members of the Committee who were not present for that debate, I will explain the premise. The idea began when I had two interns with the surnames Hussein and Patel. They told me that they had applied for hundreds of jobs and had not been accepted for interview for any. It is not too hard to conclude that that had something to do with their surnames and recognition of their ethnicity. They were both bright, wonderful interns who went on to far better things than helping me.
Much of the Bill is about the discrimination that is found once one is in work. This proposal takes a step back and considers why people might be excluded at the written application stage. People could be subliminally excluded by a human resources department or an individual who is reading a CV, without there being any intention to discriminate. In a name, one can recognise ethnicity, gender and age. We would not wish any of those things to be barriers at that first stage. Once people get through to interview all will be revealed, but at that stage personality can mitigate any subliminal bias.
When children take exams, we do a similar thing to eliminate any bias from the examiner or marker—give children a candidate number for their GCSE, AS-level and A-level papers. There is no reason why written application forms could not use something like the national insurance number so that unconscious discards did not happen to the same degree.
I did not realise that floating this idea on Second Reading would create such a hoo-hah in the personnel world. I have been supported by two big employer organisations, one of which is the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development thinks that the idea has great merit. Although businesses often moan that equality can be expensive, this measure could eliminate some unconscious discrimination without costing anything.
The other side of the personnel world is very concerned and upset. In a Personnel Todaypoll, 73 per cent. of the 300 respondents did not like the idea, but I have a view that the personnel industry might not like an idea that could mean some of its control being removed, as it would see that as a challenge to its expertise. However, organisations that represent personnel and employment agencies, are keen because this is a simple measure. I am not sure why there was such a hoo-hah: it seems like a sensible suggestion and would be minimal in terms of effort and expenditure. I therefore hope to find some support for it.