One part of the social mobility strategy announced this week is about removing barriers to employment.  And I was very pleased to see a very simple idea that I floated during the passage of the Equality Bill (rejected by Labour – surprise) finally find its way into being.

This is a very simply idea for job applications where applicants don’t put their name or school on the application form – using something like their National Insurance number instead – to ensure that judgement is on experience, skills and qualifications in the first sift. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Office introduced the removal of which school the applicant attended in addition to the removal of name – for obvious reasons.

I long ago wrote a column for the Ham & High on this – pasted below.

What’s in a name?
I had two interns a while back whose surnames were Hussein and Patel. They were bright as buttons and of course, because that is the point of interning for an MP, they went on to get very good jobs – one at the Ministry of Defence and the other in public relations.

Prior to coming to my office they told me that they had applied for hundreds of jobs but not even got through to the interview stage. It wasn’t rocket science to wonder if their surname was a barrier.

So I developed my theory that there might be a subliminal discard of applications because of an unconscious bias of some sort. My suggested proposal to counter any such bias is that we should move to anonymous job applications where the applicant uses something like their National Insurance number instead of their name on written application. Without a name – the ethnicity, gender and age of the applicant would be hidden – and the application would be judged on its merit in terms of qualifications and experience.

Of course, when it comes to interview, all would be revealed. But once an applicant is in the room – that subliminal discard is out the way – and the force of character takes over. Lord knows, I have been in enough ‘equal ops’ panels interviewing to know that regardless of the scores and the weighting given to questions and answers – it is far more to do with the instincts of the panel about the person – than any of the ‘rules’ of interview. So getting through to the interview is key.

We give children numbers to write on their exam papers to ensure that there is absolutely no bias in marking. This is really the same kind of thing.

I floated my thesis in the second reading of the Equality Bill and it caused quite a hoo ha in the employment world. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development supported the idea – although did not believe it should be mandatory. Some in the human resource industry thought it was a stupid idea.

Not deterred by the outrage of the agencies that make a living from examining CVs, finding employees, etc – at Committee stage of the Bill, I tabled an amendment which would see this brought into law. The Solicitor General, Vera Baird (Labour Minister) after sneering for a bit, admitted that the Department of Work and Pensions, since I put the idea forward at second reading, was doing some survey work to find out if my theory was correct. She said she was sorry to tantalise the committee as the work would not be finished until the summer – but initial findings showed ‘significant discrimination’.

I was really excited – because if this were to become best practise – this would really blast apart one of the biggest barriers to work that people can experience. So – we will see in the summer where this goes.

Then the Mail on Sunday gets the wrong end of the stick and blasts the government for another bit of work it is clearly doing on the issue. Apparently the DWP sent out two thousand applications with false names to companies to ‘see if they are racist’. Well – firstly if the ‘experiment’ demonstrates that there is deep and systemic ‘racism’ then it is a valuable experiment. The Mail and the CBI are saying how dare the Government waste business time.

Blimey – this is a proposal that actually won’t cost business any money and might drastically improve the situation for applicants for jobs – bringing fairness and equality – and still they moan.

I don’t know how many and what type of experiments the Government is carrying out to prove or disprove my theory – it is without doubt important to prove – so good on them for taking it seriously. If it is proved – then it will be important to remove that barrier. To have the qualifications and experience and be barred from getting through the first stage of job applications for some unconscious reason is not acceptable.

And to those who think this is about racism, sexism or ageism per se – it isn’t just about that. The Mail on Sunday jumped to that conclusion – but a little work to research the issue would have shown them that this is a theory based on science as well as subliminal discrimination per se. There has been some work done which shows that the brain reacts differently to that which it is familiar as opposed to that which it finds alien. That is why this is about eradicating subliminal reactions.

So what’s in a name? Quite a lot!

This week, a number of Liberal Democrat policies are coming into action that will make a huge difference to people lives. Over the next seven days, Liberal Democrat policy will:

· give £625m extra to our schools, aimed at the most disadvantaged pupils

· lift more than 800 thousand low earners out of paying income tax altogether

· give 23 million people a £200 tax cut (on basic rate taxation)

· ensure pensioners retiring now will be £15,000 better off over their retirement

Funding for the pupil premium, a longstanding and key Liberal Democrat policy, began on Friday April 1. We believe that education is the engine of social mobility and in the next year the pupil premium will see £625m extra going to our schools to give the most vulnerable children the best possible start in life. Over the course of the Government, funding will increase to £2.5bn.

That is £4.5 million for Haringey this year – and more every year this parliament.

As the new financial year starts – and some of the financial decisions come into reality – I hope that people can see that despite the very, very tough regime – the changes in finances are progressive.

Last week:

I was invited to the AGM of Haringey Race and Equality Council to speak about the equalities agenda and take questions. The key concerns were on funding and the future of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. On funding it was clear that small groups are having funding withdrawn by the Council. It was interesting that the frustration was around support for vulnerable people – and yet if you take the Supporting People funding  – the Government has actually cut 1% from the £650million. Without the ring fence (removed by Labour when in government) it appears that cuts are being made way disproportionately to that 1%.

The EHRC is remodellling itself to become probably what it was always intended to be – a much valued and respected national institution for upholding equality and human rights in this country. It had an unfortunate birth – where the previous three commissions (race, women and disabilities) were folded into one body without any real decisions being made on purpose. The EHRC is now moving towards that new vision. A consultation on its future has now gone out and how it achieves its new incarnation is up to the EHRC – as it is an independent body – albeit in financial terms it is funded by public money and has to be accountable for its expenditure.

I received a lobby from local environmental and sustainability groups on the Energy Bill. They presented their case for improvements and additions to the Energy Bill and I have undertaken to take those ‘asks’ to the appropriate ministers. In fact – to facilitate the lobby I had in attendance one of the special advisers to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change – so straight (so to speak) to the horse’s mouth.

I had the pleasure too, on Friday, of visiting Treehouse – our exemplar facility for children with autism in Muswell Hill. This was to celebrate the opening of the OGA (outdoor games area). It is a wonderful new area for games where not just the children from Treehouse – but also children from the local schools – can come and do games and sport together. As part of the celebrations children from Muswell Hill School had come (as they do once a week) to demonstrate a range of games with each of them paired with a child from Treehouse. It was extremely moving – and there can be no better education than children playing together to encourage understanding, kindness and community.

My column from the Ham & High this week:

Miss – what’s a structural deficit? That’s a question that I was asked recently – and am asked quite often – when I go to schools or meet young people. I tend to simply explain it by saying that we’re all used to the idea that we may spend a bit more than we have some months and make up for it in other months, e.g. saving a bit in the run up to Christmas and then spending rather more than our pay check in December.

That’s fine if the ups and downs balance out, but if we’re persistently spending more than we get, that’s a problem – and the equivalent of a structural deficit for the government. In good times taxes are higher, and in bad times taxes are lower (and benefit payments higher). If those even out over time that’s fine, but we’re in a situation at the moment where they don’t – so we are not only deeply in debt but, if nothing is done, will continue to go ever further into debt.

Then there’s politics. So the argument is how you get to a position where you are living within your means – ie eradicating the structural deficit. I generally go on to explain that it’s here where the political argument rages – between getting the structural deficit sorted in one parliament (the Coalition) or whether you do it in two parliaments (Labour). There’s no argument that it needs sorting – well there wasn’t until Ed Balls took up post as Shadow Chancellor and said there wasn’t a structural deficit under Labour – which explains a lot about Labour economic policy.

As I write, I am also listening as a debate rages on the TV (rage is perhaps overstating the case) about the cuts and the deficit. The conversation veers from the morality (or lack of it) of whether those who can least afford it are bearing the brunt of the cuts – and the oft stated view that without recovery and growth in the private sector – we won’t have the jobs and the money to make things better.

The answer, of course, is both are the case. We do need growth and we do need to protect the most vulnerable in society from the harshest effects of the cold winds blowing through our lives. Perhaps we had got too used to the years of plenty – or rather – we thought they were years of plenty because the way the last government spent money like water – we had no sense of what was to come (except Vince Cable).

Live now – pay later. We were all guilty!

There are lots of measures both in last year’s budget, the comprehensive spending review and this budget to try and protect the vulnerable. No – they are not perfect – but they are there. This year’s budget – re-linking pensions with earnings and the coming move to a universal pension will help millions of older people (especially women). The taking out of tax of 880,000 of the lowest pay earners and the year by year raising of the tax threshold until no one pays any tax on earnings up to £10,000 will help those most in need. The pay rise for those in the public sector on £21,000 or less announced in the Budget will help the lower earners and so on. Don’t want to just regale you with a list of the good bits – although there are lots more. But of course – there are harsh parts too – and belts are being tightened all over the place. And clearly those with the least margins of financial safety in their lives have very little room for belt tightening.

On the other side of the equation, in what was a fiscally neutral budget, there were breaks for growth and that is the engine that has to drive this recovery.

What is tough – and will get tougher – is losing jobs. People in work will mostly get by – somehow. People on benefits will mostly get by – somehow. But for those who lose their job – it will be devastating. The cuts were announced last year. Their impact has yet to fully hit. This budget promised growth. The proof will be in the pudding. And the question will be whether there’s a new job to be found within a time frame that can keep health, hearth and home together – and we need to keep a watch over that.

But above and beyond everything – that structural deficit has to be gripped. Until we live within our means – we will simply never get out of this mess!

Last night I went to Ashford for Any Questions. It was, unusually, an all women panel: Margaret Beckett, Laurie Penny, myself and Anne McElvoy, public policy editor of the Economist

As ever – because you never know what questions might come up – there is a lot of ground to cover in preparation. Of course – you can make an educated guess as to what those questions might be.

My guess was: Libya, (because it is the key news issue), AV (because Margaret Beckett is Chair of the ‘No to AV’ campaign), the protests over cuts and the policing thereof (because Laurie Penny, a young journalist, had written an outspoken article in support of direct action) and something on women (because of my position as Minister for Equalities ). On this occasion – I got it right. The last question – which is always the ‘surprise’ was about what we had learned from our mothers that had stood us all in good stead.

I won’t rehearse all the arguments – but it is repeated today on Radio 4 at lunchtime – for anyone who is interested.

Just a reminder whilst I am posting that you can learn a lot from Mark Pack about what is going on inside the Liberal Democrats by visiting his informative newsletter here.

Also, I am aware that my blogging has been a bit non-existent recently. Next week the Protection of Freedoms Bill starts its passage through committee and myself and James Brokenshire will be taking it through. I hope to be able to blog its passage – time permitting.

just a quick post to let everyone know that Alexandra ward now have their own website which you can visit here.

Three cheers for Channel 4 for signing up to the Memorandum of Agreement with Trans Media Watch.

The agreement was signed by Channel 4 at an event last Monday and is the brainchild of Trans Media Watch – a group that works to ensure that fair and accurate portrayals of transgender people are used in the media.

Bt signing, Channel 4 has committed to ‘accuracy, dignity and respect’ in its portrayal of transgender people and to ensure that transgender people in the media are treated with the same respect as everyone else.

Trans Media Watch make it clear that this does not touch on editorial freedom and is not about any sort of censorship – but is to give media organisations the information they need to address the issue from an informed standpoint.

Channel 4 showed three of its 4thought films that will be aired shortly – each was of a trans person speaking about their particular situation. They were such brilliant and powerful snapshots of these three trans peoples’ lives that anyone watching would – if they know little about the trans world – stop seeing the trans and start seeing the person. Absolutely brilliant shorts.

89% of trans gender people experience hate crime. That is beyond shocking and beyond unacceptable and demonstrates just how far we still have to go – despite having some of the best anti-discrimination law in the world. Later this year the Government will publish the first ever transgender action plan –  to address some of the issues that impact on trans people.

But that statistic surely also demonstrates the vital need for more understanding – which is the purpose of Trans Media Watch’s Memorandum of Agreement.

Congratulations to Trans Media Watch for this brilliant initiative and to Channel 4 for being the first (hopefully of many) broadcasters to sign up.

I had the real pleasure of opening the new LGF (Lesbian and Gay Foundation) Community Resource Centre in Manchester earlier this week – and at the opening launching the Government’s LGB&T action plan.

LGF is now housed in fantastic new premises – and clearly provides a vital heart to serving the LGB&T community in Manchester and beyond. Having met all the staff and volunteers – I was overwhelmed by their warmth and commitment to the community. Congratulations to Paul Martin and everyone there who have made the LGF such a wonderful place and wonderful resource.

The action plan highlights the government’s continued commitment to challenging homophobia, transphobia and inequality in all areas, including: education, the workplace, and across public sector services. You can read it here!