Continuing my mini-series on the forthcoming Single Equalities Bill and what the final Act should contain, I do not think the courts that deal with discrimination have enough powers to really put an end, or even significantly dent, discrimination.

Since claims are brought by an individual, the courts can only look at what wrong that individual has actually suffered and seek to compensate them for this through damages.

Whilst the court discrimination awards are unlimited and can include ‘hurt to feeling’, in certain cases this quite simply isn’t enough and amounts to no more than a small financial slap on the wrist. I am thinking about real systematic discrimination that is low level and done on a large scale – say for example – a chain of hotels that will only let gay couples have rooms on the top floor for example.

The narrow, direct damage suffered by the individuals is relatively small. The ‘hurt to feelings’ award might bump it up a bit, but the hotel could make a calculated decision that it could afford it.

What if in a case like this the court could award punitive damages? When making an award for damages, it could look beyond the individual in front of it and consider how many people might be affected and whether the defendant has done anything to change its ways.

And say if on the third or fourth case against this chain, the court decided a stronger message needed to be made.

Case law is developing in this directly with the advent of exemplary damages, but this is only in a limited set of circumstances (when the defendant is an agent of government or when the defendant has made a calculated risk that it is more profitable to discriminate – which is not the case is the example I gave as some might discriminate even if it is unprofitable).

I’m increasingly of the view that we should accelerate the pace of change, and that therefore this aspect of the current law needs to be looked at. The Single Equalities Bill will certainly provide an opportunity to move matters along in this regard.

The long-awaited Single Equalities Bill will shortly be eating up much of my time in Parliament as it wends its way through the legislative process and it falls slap bang in the middle of my job in the Liberal Democrat Shadow Cabinet on youth and equalities.

The Bill represents real opportunity. I think I’m right in saying that when is comes to equality legislation there have been nine separate Acts, four European Directives and countless other regulations spanning four decades.

To say discrimination legislation is a bit bitty and fragment is an understatement. Therefore a new Bill will be a simplifying and tidying up undertaking. However, for me the Bill must be more than mere gardening exercise, it must tackle some of the inequalities between these various laws that lead to unequal treatment.

There are numerous anomalies that have been a product of this piecemeal, almost organic evolution of legislation. From the Government’s statements and what I have heard in the House of Commons, I would expect most, if not all, of these oddities to be corrected.

Moving beyond that, the Bill offers the chance to achieve a three-fold success: firstly – to make discrimination more difficult; secondly – to make discrimination legislation more effective; thirdly – to insist that any exceptions to this Act are on the face of the legislation.

If these three things are not in the Bill – then we will be tabling amendments to these effects.

Of course we wait with baited breadth to see which side the Government comes down on some important points. The discrepancy in the definition of a comparator between Equal Pay Act and other Acts certainly needs sorting. The Liberal Democrats would hope to see the abolition of the need for a real comparator. We believe this would do more to accelerate equality by making it easier for an individual to bring equal pay claims.

I also believe we should apply imaginative – and even edgy – thinking across all three areas. The Government goes through criminal justice bills like it does hot dinners. Sadly, inequality does not get the same attention – so we should be willing to be imaginative in making the most of the options the Bill will present. I’ve blogged already about employment ideas – and will blog about more shortly!

A little while back I spoke to the Equality and Diversity Forum, and one of the ideas I floated was a change in employment recruitment practices. I thought I’d reproduce that part of my speech as it contained a few ideas I floated and which I’m particularly interested in hearing more feedback on.

So here’s the gist of what I said.

I have been struck by the experiences of two interns I’ve had in my office since becoming an MP. Both were fantastic working for me – but both had the same experience searching for work. Until they worked for me – time and time again, they sent in job applications – literally hundreds – and got nowhere, despite having appropriate qualifications and experience. But work for me as an intern – get Member of Parliament into your CV – and suddenly, doors opened and they both got the sorts of excellent jobs they deserved.

Now – somehow I don’t think than transformation was due to power of my name – I’m not that famous! But rather both have obviously non-Anglo Saxon names, and I believe what happened was that having a Member of Parliament on your CV got them beyond that initial, often instinctive and even unknowing discrimination that sees people when sorting through piles of CVs, put a large number to one side without really very much thought about each.

And really this highlights the issue that – unless you have carefully controlled employment processes – it is very easy for biases and discrimination to creep in. One of the most striking examples of this has been in orchestras, when for decades men “knew” that women couldn’t play man instruments as well as them – until blind auditions started being used. Those auditions were often introduced to block other forms of bias – so as favouritism by those running orchestras – but the result was a tackling of a much wider range of problems.

So – the conclusion I draw from all this? It’s that we should look seriously about making name-blind employment processes the norm rather than the exception. Surnames shouldn’t put you out of the employment race before you’ve even got out of the starting blocks.

Once an applicant gets to interview – the rest is down to how the interview goes. We won’t be able to take discrimination or prejudice completely out of the equation if you are being interviewed by a bigot – but your chances with most employers will be far better – being seen as a whole human who is or is not the right person for the job.

As for the mechanism – the forthcoming Single Equalities Bill provides the opportunity. I am generally sceptical about those whose first instinct is to legislate – and I think there is a strong case for putting in place voluntary agreements and best practice first, particularly concentrating on larger employers. But legislation can be used to give the powers that be the necessary targets to aim for and impetus to act, changing assumptions and habits so that name-blind employment practices become the norm.

And who knows what orchestra-like spin off benefits there may be – though I am sure there’ll be more than one or two people who, thinking of the fusses over MPs employing relatives – will think that Parliament itself may benefit from leading the way on this!

This employment issue is, of course, but one part of a much wider equality agenda. I mention it first though because I think it is particularly important for three reasons.

First – because if we are to win the battle for wider and more effective equality issues, we need to win over those who do not place a high priority on it, or who think there aren’t major issues here. Challenging discrimination in employment – so that the best person gets the jobs – is the sort of aim everyone can support.

Second – it brings benefits to all sides of the equation – both those who stop being discriminated against but also those who end up with the better staff for the job. And that win-win helps us move away from the cul–de-sac of division that arguing for one group’s rights at the perceived expense of others so often causes. We need to build a broad consensus for sustained long term success – not indulge in one group beating another over the head.

And third – because so much power comes from the economic pocket book – and breaking down discrimination in employment practices will help spread that economic power more widely amongst all our communities.