This week’s Equality Bill is probably the most important measure of this Parliamentary session, but it has been drowned out by the hysteria over MPs’ expenses. Which is a pity. Nearly 40 years after the 1970 Equal Pay Act the national gender pay gap for women in full-time employment is 17%, and even higher for women in part-time employment. Last year there was actually a slight increase. Currently there is no transparency about pay discrimination, and women cannot require their employer to explain how their pay compares to others. And a fundamental flaw at the present time is that pursuing an equal pay case to tribunal is a long, complex and stressful process which rarely delivers equal pay to women. Will the Bill remedy all this?

Whilst the provisions in the Bill for gender pay reporting wiil improve transparency, the proposals are severely limited. It is really not good enough that these new powers will not be operated till 2013, norapply to private firms with less than 250 employees so that probably some 50% of private sector workers will be excluded. What is missing from the Bill is mandatory pay audits which would require all employers to identify any disparity in pay between men and women doing work of equal value and produce action plans to rectify the anomalies. Also missing is the option of representative actions whereby discrimination affecting a large group of women can be heard in a single case rather than, as at present, requiring each individual woman to make her own claim. And a third problem with the Bill is that it does not tackle the issue that at present women have to point to an actual male colleague who is being paid a higher rate in order to prove they are being discriminated against. As a result occupations with high concentrations of women are often low paid (e.g. child carers compared to plumbers), and what is needed is to allow the use of hypothetical comparators.
There are several other measures in the Bill which have the potential to make a breakthrough. The new duty on Ministers, departments and certain public bodies such as local authorities and health authorities to make strategic decisions about spending and service delivery to reduce the socio-economic inequalities people face is a major initiative, but provides for no enforcement or powers of remedy. The Bill also incirporates existing anti-discrimination duties into one equality duty which will cover race, gender and disability, but will also be extended to cover age, sexual orientation, religion, pregnancy and maternity, and this new duty will also apply to private bodies that deliver a public function (e.g. a private firm running a prison). Further, whilst age discrimination in the workplace is already unlawful, the Bill also makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone over 18 when providing services or carrying out public functions (including in the provision of insurance services).
There are other welcome measures too regarding positive action, the right of employment tribunals to make recommendations in discrimination cases which benefit the whole workforce and not just the individual who won the claim, protection for carers, and strengthened protection for disabled people. However, all these gains will depend not only on resources, but on how rigorously practice is monitored. We need to keep a very close eye on results on the ground.

Bookmark to: