It is the lot of every solicitor that there will be a specific dinner party question that folk cannot resist asking. That question will be specific to each area of law and will usually be raised over the After Eights as if for the first time ever. For the criminal lawyer it will be to ask how anyone could act for someone who they ‘know’ is guilty; for the tax lawyer it will perhaps be whether anyone could ever get them to give a straight answer, and for the employment lawyer it will be the perennial ‘Don’t you think discrimination law/all this political correctness has gone too far?', followed by a heavy sigh.

The answer to our question is a clear ‘it depends’, since much will turn on the type of client the lawyer in question gets to deal with the most. Many major corporate clients will complain that the law is too complex, but will do so with resignation – having the luxury of experienced HR teams and a reasonable budget to insulate them a little. Those acting mainly for individuals could always find use for another law to help their clients, so usually feel even more could be done to scourge the evil of prejudice.

This leaves us with those who act for smaller enterprises, including owner-managed businesses who so often find themselves the filling in this sandwich. Without the resources to engage full-time HR (or legal) support, these businesses are often left to chart the complex waters of discrimination laws alone and so often, understandably, sink. Indeed, many will admit that their employees are more clued-up on the laws than they are; some will openly confess that they believe themselves to be bullied by junior staff members who overstate their rights.

Recent examples of such bullying include employees demanding a four-week holiday on three days' notice (to visit relatives in another country), refusing to work overtime under any circumstances because a pay rise was felt to have been too low and turning up late for work every morning (on the express basis that if sacked they will sue for discrimination, as they happen to be of a particular race/nationality, etc). With guidance, these problems can be managed, as the law does not say that because someone has a particular gender or race they can do what they like. The stereotypical employee about to be dismissed (after fair process) for theft who announces that she happens to be pregnant should be congratulated but, unless the pregnancy is a relevant or mitigating factor, dealt with in the same way as anyone else. The problem is that many still do not appreciate this.

Against this backdrop, many businesses will have winced when they saw the release issued by Harriet Harman and the government's equality office on 26 June, which set out further potential changes to the proposed Equality Bill. The release confirms the publication of Framework for a Fairer Future – the Equality Bill, which we are assured is going to be a blockbuster. Though unlikely to be serialised in the Sunday papers, it can be downloaded from www.equalities.gov.uk or directly at http://tinyurl.com/fairer-future. It is well worth a read, though is ultimately a precursor to a more detailed paper.

Some of its objectives are intended at present to apply only to the public sector, although the publication acknowledges that this will have an impact on those in the private sector who deal with public bodies. Also, given the nature of the changes, it must be highly likely that the changes will then be rolled out across the private sector. Other objectives, it appears, will affect the private sector also on implementation.

In the first category comes the suggestion that there will be a streamlining (or ‘de-clutter’) of the various discrimination laws to create a new Equality Duty. This will build on the three specific public sector obligations (race, disability and gender) introduced over the last eight years by putting them together to create a single duty, which will include the other areas of discrimination law such as sexual orientation and religion/belief. It is suggested that this duty will make the law more effective in this sector and, ­curiously, that it will be written in plain English (presumably the existing law is thought, unfairly, to have been written in spoonerisms). Given the subtle differences between the various discrimination laws, it will be as intriguing to see how the government hopes to weave these together plainly as it is likely that this approach will subsequently be extended to the private sector – hence all should feel the need to comment.

In the second category comes a variety of measures headlined by the suggestion that employers ‘may be able’, or perhaps ‘will be required’ to positively discriminate in favour of an under-represented group when selecting between 'two equally qualified candidates'. Now, much will depend upon whether this ends up as an option to do this (as the paper suggests) or an obligation, but it is interesting that the paper states that, to end inequality, ‘you will have to take positive action to redress disadvantage as well as tackle ­discrimination’, since this does not accord with the ‘level paying field stance’ that has been favoured for the last 34 years or so.

Positive discrimination and quotas have of course found a place in the US and indeed some public institutions here (for example Parliament, through women-only lists), though admittedly with rather varied results and an irregular fan base. However, it has never seriously been proposed before as a broader concept in the private sector, since the law has remained more concerned with individuals not been treated unfavourably in employment rather than being advantaged.

Clearly, the suggestion is not one of quotas as such (used some years ago without notable success in the case of disabled employees) but of preferring a candidate from an under-represented group, where all other factors are equal. In theory this could be attractive, and it may well support the employer who has previously shied away from seeking such balance in the recruitment process. Undoubtedly, some of the Question Time hysteria will also prove overstated. However, there is one clear flaw. Has anyone ever interviewed two candidates where ‘all other things are equal’?

Surely recruitment is always a debate about the pros and cons of each candidate on their merits and, to be honest, can sometimes be an act of faith. Also, are smaller businesses always going to have a meaningful view on what is an under-represented class of employee in a company of only four or five people?

In fairness, the suggestion is that the ‘all other things’ equality will relate to qualifications, but does this really have much relevance outside the Civil Service (where the perception remains that the square footage of carpet in an office reflects whether or not its incumbent was a Cambridge Blue at tiddlywinks)?

However, the suggested law is at a very early stage and undoubtedly will come under great scrutiny, not least from the equal opportunities lobby which does not appear to have universally signed up to this kind of approach. This is either down to philosophy or taking into account more practical concerns, such as creating a temptation for employers to rig second interviews to ensure there is insufficient similarity between the favoured candidate and the underrepresented candidates in attendance to trigger the ‘duty/option’ scenario. Another issue is, if it is an option, what will happen to the employer who repeatedly fails to take it?

The paper includes a number of other interesting measures, such as strengthening the power of the tribunals to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases, and allowing multiple discrimination claims (for example asserting discrimination on the grounds of more than one characteristic) which, if they survive debate, will merit further scrutiny. But whatever happens, it is clear that the government has not lost its appetite for further legislation in the employment arena. On the contrary, the paper suggests that we may now be moving into a consolidation stage, based upon a rather more robust philosophical platform.

We live in interesting times. Perhaps a lawyer friend of mine is right to claim, when asked his job at parties, to be a male pole dancer. Though not an option to us all (see my photo) it could prove to be a less problematic reply.