Equal Pay and Flexible Working Bill [HL]

My Lords, the aim of the Bill is straightforward, succinct and, indeed, necessary. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, for bringing it forward. As we have just heard, the Bill has three clear aims. First, it establishes a new test of reasonableness as a defence in an equal pay claim. Secondly, it provides for a compulsory pay audit where employers are found guilty of gender pay discrimination. Thirdly, it extends the right to request flexible working to parents of children up to 17. I want to say a few words about these principles before I offer a general comment on the social and economic case for supporting the Bill. Currently, all that an employer has to prove is that the difference in pay between a man and a woman is not caused by direct or unjustifiable indirect sex discrimination. Under the Bill, any difference in pay between a man and a woman in equivalent jobs must be objectively justified and reasonable. My worry here is that ““justification”” could become a legal paradise in which lawyers play. Under the Bill, where employers are found not to be meeting the statutory requirements of the Equal Pay Act, they will be obliged to institute a pay audit, as we have heard. As the pay audit will be a statutory requirement, we should be told what form it will take, its methodology and who will carry it out. Will the results be published and, if so, where and by whom? While I welcome the Bill, I can already hear the echoes of the backwoodsmen from the CBI and every other employers’ organisation in the land asking how anyone can promote these measures at a time like this, and saying, ““You will bring the economy to its knees””. For good measure, they will think of a number, double it and claim the result as the number of jobs that will be lost if the Bill becomes law. I only hope that this time they will not have the support of the party opposite, as we saw in the debate on the minimum wage a few years ago. Let me look at the evidence on why the Bill is needed. We have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mention some of the figures, which are substantiated. The evidence shows a 17 per cent pay gap between a man and a woman doing the same full-time work: for every pound that a man earns, a woman earns only 83p. In the private sector that gap widens: a woman earns 78p—a 38 per cent gap. It is no wonder that last year 44,000 equal pay claims were brought before the courts, which means that all of us as taxpayers are meeting the cost of pay discrimination. Throughout history the women of this country have always had to fight to get pay justice, from the match girls in the East End of London to the gallant sewing machinists at Ford in Dagenham in 1968, who discovered that they were being paid 15 per cent less than their male colleagues for doing exactly the same job. After three weeks on strike, with the mediation of the late Barbara Castle, the Ford sewing machinists took a giant step towards pay justice, which established the case for the Equal Pay Act 1970. On the last leg of this Bill on the right to flexible working, history does not guide me. However, I will say this: in the busy world of today’s labour market, flexible working can be a liberating experience in balancing the demands of home and work. Ironically, at a time of economic recession, flexible working is exactly what the economy needs. One thing is clear—as the social order within families is rebalanced, the essential ingredients of work will be when we work, how long we work and how we balance working time and family time. The Bill is an idea whose time has really come. It is morally right and socially just and on that basis I wish it well.