| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Equal Pay
13. Mrs. Helen Clark (Peterborough): If she will make a statement about the Government's targets for equal pay. [110645]
The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are working to reduce the gender pay gap through a variety of measures, including equal pay reviews throughout the civil service by the end of April, working with the Equal Opportunities Commission to promote equal pay reviews by other employers, introducing an equal pay questionnaire as part of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and providing trade unions with additional funding for training representatives in equal pay issues.
Mrs. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Doubtless she is aware that, despite the Equal Pay Act, which a previous Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, effected in 1976, women who work full time earn only 81p for every pound that men earn and women who work part time earn only 59p for every pound that men earn. More worryingly, within three years of graduation, women earn on average 15 per cent. less than their male counterparts.
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Fawcett Society that unless the Government set firm targets, at the current snail's rate of progress, it will take 75 years before equal pay for women is truly achieved?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the shocking extent of the continuing pay gap. However, in order to reduce it, we need to take action, especially on the problem of low pay from which so many women suffer. The introduction of the national minimum wage on top of Barbara Castle's Equal Pay Act has already meant significant pay rises for nearly 1 million women. I am delighted that, a few weeks ago, I was able to announce further increases in the national minimum wage for this year and next year, following the Low Pay Commission's recommendations.
At the top of the labour market, far too few women have access to the best paid jobs. Tribunal cases in the City have shown that even those women who get to the top do not receive equal pay. The cases that are being brought for equal pay for work of equal value—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to give the shadow Minister time to come in.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden): The Minister for Women has just commended the civil service's progress towards achieving equal pay targets. In the light of that, how does she explain that only 19 of the 93 Government Departments or agencies conducted an equal pay review by the deadline last Wednesday, despite being given a year to do it?
Ms Hewitt: All Government Departments are undertaking equal pay reviews. Those that have not completed them will shortly do so and put in place
action plans to ensure that the equal pay gaps revealed by the reviews are closed. With the involvement of ACAS, we have put in place the new grading structure and phased pay rises that will ensure that the women as well as the men in the Department receive fair pay.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): Following that answer and the Government's initiative in trying to deal with the unacceptable gender pay gap through independent audits, can the Minister say how many corporations have agreed to conduct or have carried out independent, rigorous assessments of the type that she is
seeking? How many of the rather limited number of public sector reviews passed the test of being independent and rigorous?
Ms Hewitt: The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Government are monitoring the take-up of equal pay reviews in the private sector. When we have that information, we will, of course, publish it. In the civil service, we have sought independent assistance in ensuring that reviews are carried out properly. They have revealed serious problems of unequal pay and we are putting in place the action needed to put that right.
Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 5 May—The House will not be sitting
Tuesday 6 May—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 7 May—Second Reading of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.
Thursday 8 May—Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill.
Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
Monday 12 May—Opposition day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 13 May—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 14 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 15 May—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. [First Part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a debate on developing a national skills strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 16 May—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for letting us have the business. The Second Reading of the foundation hospitals Bill will take place on 7 May. Will he reconsider whether one day is enough to allow his colleagues to air their views on that Bill? He said last night, in the pleasant little exchange that we had on a parliamentary matter, how grateful he was for the unusual support that he was getting from his parliamentary colleagues. Given that new confidence, perhaps he will consider having a two-day debate on the Second Reading of the foundation hospitals Bill, so that he can wallow further in the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues and demonstrate the extent of support that there is in the Labour party for foundation hospitals. That would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
May we have a debate very early on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy? I am told that the current Greek presidency of the European Union has indicated that it wants a final agreement as early as June on the new shape of the CAP. If that is the case, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that it is extremely important that hon. Members, particularly those with agricultural and rural interests, have an opportunity to have their say about the CAP before the Government commit us to a position on CAP reform. I hope that he will agree that that is urgent and that he will provide Government time to debate it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor referred yesterday to an astonishing error in the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill, which wrongly stated the basic rate of tax. In fairness to the Treasury—the Chancellor beetled out of the Chamber before he could hear what the shadow Chancellor said—a correction has been issued, but my right hon. and learned Friend asked for an undertaking that the Chancellor would come to the House before next Tuesday's debate on the Finance Bill to correct any further errors in the explanatory notes. We cannot be expected to start a major debate on the Finance Bill ill and erroneously informed by the Treasury about the basic elements of the legislation. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that the Chancellor has done his homework, looked through the explanatory notes and satisfied himself that there are no further errors and, if there are, that he will come to the House to correct them. An apology—rare though it would be from the Chancellor—would not be out of place.
Has the Leader of the House opened his parliamentary mail this morning? I am sure that, like me, he opens his own post every morning and peruses the contents. If he has, he will have found a rather odd letter from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The letter was entitled, "Licensing Bill Surgery". I am sure that we would all like to see some—no, a lot of—surgery on the Licensing Bill, but that is not what was meant.
The letter pointed out that the Licensing Bill is currently in Committee, but went on to say:
- "Certain aspects of the Bill have been contentious"—
- "and some are still not fully understood."
- "I believe that it is extremely important we are able to answer your fears and concerns"—
- "and to clarify any points of misunderstanding. I therefore propose to hold a surgery session at which you can put your points or concerns to my officials, the experts on the Bill."
On 28 April, the Paymaster General rashly said, in the context of the child and working tax credits, that her
- "aim is that . . . families will get their money by Friday of this week."—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 54.]
Yesterday the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—I see him in his place, as ever—asked the Prime Minister a question. The hon. Gentleman first reminded the Prime Minister of a written parliamentary reply of 19 December 2001, in which he had said:
- "Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of the House of Commons and that if there were a development which required a change of policy, he"—
- "would at such a moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 367W.]
All Members have an interest in this matter, Mr. Speaker, as must you. If Members of Parliament are to have their telephones tapped, we must know why and how. Most important of all—this is the key question—was it authorised by the Prime Minister? Either he knows what is going on or he does not. This matter is of the highest constitutional importance. I hope that the Leader of the House can either give us reassurances about this matter or instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House early next week to clarify the matter so that we know the truth about it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |