Equality Bill

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 87 and the other amendments in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Warsi. Our amendments would have the effect of easing an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on companies without, we believe, weakening the effect of the Bill on equal pay. We regard equal pay as a matter of social justice and believe that the plight of women working in firms of all sizes should not be ignored. I introduced a Private Member’s Bill on this subject a year ago this week and remain firmly committed to the issue and its importance. I said then that pay inequality is not acceptable whatever the economic times. We must ensure a culture of equality and fairness in the workplace to motivate women, who will play a crucial part as the economy recovers. I reiterate that in the knowledge that noble Lords around the Chamber will share my dismay that in the 21st century women are still paid on average almost 13 per cent less than men, with the figure rising substantially for part-time work. I remind your Lordships that 45 per cent of women who work in the UK do so on a part-time basis. These women deserve to be treated fairly and protected by the law, yet we have seen the pay gap widen in some areas. That is why I brought legislation before your Lordships' House. I did not pursue it last January because I genuinely believed, as so many of us did, that we would have seen the Equality Bill in your Lordships' House long before now. However, as I and my noble friend Lady Warsi explained at Second Reading, we are not convinced that the Bill’s intention to impose compulsory pay audits is the right way in which to proceed. We believe that requiring all companies to carry out this exercise would be costly and time-consuming and would not necessarily be effective. Surely the emphasis and resources should be directed at problem employers and how we deter unfair practices. The more sensible solution would be to require an audit in all companies in which an employee has brought a successful case on these grounds. That would greatly strengthen the current position by providing meaningful sanctions against unfair employers while not burdening the majority of fair employers with a new administrative burden. I recognise that business organisations are not too keen on the Government’s amendments but have concerns with our proposals as well, mainly because they have worries over the tribunal service. We understand those worries and would like to carry out a review of the service if possible. As noble Lords will see from our proposal that Clause 78 should not stand part, we have serious concerns with the means of achieving a shared desire. Just before Second Reading, there were hints in what appeared to be well informed media that the Government might be looking to row back on company pay audits. The Minister denied that when we raised it at Second Reading, but there is still time for her to reconsider. The exemptions from this clause are very interesting. Why would they not apply to government departments? Perhaps we are to believe that Her Majesty's Government have an unimpeachable record on equal pay. Sadly, that case does not look too convincing, given that two past Ministers for Women in another place have been appointed to do the job but not been given a salary to do it. If any part of the explanation is that this is superfluous or impractical in the cases to which the exemption applies, that should tell us all we need to know about this clause. Together with our belief that this clause is over-bureaucratic and puts an undue burden on good employers, we object to it because it will apply only to women in companies of a certain size. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, seeks to address this, but we remain of the firm belief that any equal pay legislation should be there for all women. However, if this clause remains, the metrics for gender pay gap reporting will be crucial. A number of business organisations have been in touch with us regarding serious concerns about the EHRC report, which will supposedly contain the metrics for gender pay gap reporting. Harriet Harman charged the EHRC with delivering a voluntary reporting framework that would allow greater pay transparency to be measured. The publication was expected to coincide with the Second Reading of the Equality Bill in your Lordships' House on 11 December, but the deadline came and went. According to business groups, the menu of indicators was agreed on and the final text nearly agreed, but suddenly the deadline was postponed until the new year. In January, an amended draft was then sent out that did not contain the previously agreed menu and text. There were also changes to the language, which reflected expectation rather than encouragement. This was not agreed to by certain business groups, but the late date made it very difficult to have any time for changes. The last-minute changes meant that all employer organisations on the working group found them unacceptable and forced them to reject the report. So the business groups were engaged in the process, which was then undermined. There were discussions yesterday, but the EHRC did not finish these with business organisations who were left waiting, not knowing what was happening or whether the report was going to be published without their agreement. The way this has been organised means that we do not have the report today. Has it been published yet? It certainly had not been earlier. Have the Government found agreement? What were the parameters of the near agreement before Christmas, and why have the Government rowed back on this? Late amendments, late reports, late metrics—it makes you almost feel like saying, "We can’t go on like this". I beg to move.