I am most grateful to the Minister for her careful consideration of these amendments. The noble Baroness says that our amendments are a punishment, but the Government’s own proposals would seek to impose an unnecessary duty on good employers. The Minister also said that our amendments were discriminate because they would impact on small firms, but that then leaves women who work for small firms with less protection than those who work for large organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he thought our amendments were incoherent. I think we have a fundamental disagreement; we do not think that they are at all incoherent. We feel that our amendments are good because they do not penalise or put extra administrative burdens on good employers, but send out a strong signal to employers who discriminate against women in pay that, if they do not comply, they will have to have a compulsory audit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that encouragement is better than punishment, and our amendments are indeed intended to encourage good practice. I also agree with him about women not being paid badly, as fodder for low pay, as cheap labour, in bad economic times. I said that, whatever the economic times, the issue of equal pay is one that we should always address.
I am terribly sorry that I did not address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord King, when I spoke initially. I thought that they were coming in the next group. There is an interesting case to be raised here. The Government say that they do not expect equal pay audits to be a seriously onerous burden on business in terms of cost or administration and, if that is the case, why should the Government not wish to expand the provisions to disability, age or ethnicity? I hear what the noble Baroness said, that, should that be a problem in the future, the Government will look at it. I am not saying that it is what should happen, but if you are doing it for one, it seems strange not to do it for another.
However, I feel that we are miles apart on this, which is sad, given that we want the same outcome, and it seems a pity that we cannot will the same means. Given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 87 withdrawn.
Clause 78 : Gender pay gap information
Clause 78 : Gender pay gap information
Amendments 88 to 91A not moved.
Clause 78 agreed.
Amendment 92
Moved by
Equality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Morris of Bolton
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Equality Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c975 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-21 10:00:00 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_611290
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_611290
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_611290