| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Pay Differentials
23. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): What steps the Government are taking to reduce pay differences between men and women. [163455]
The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): Since 1997, the difference in median hourly pay has fallen from 16.2 percentage points to 12.9 percentage points. That reflects, in part, increases in women's opportunities in the labour market due to increased flexible working, greater maternity pay and leave, and the help that we, together with the EOC, have provided employees with to tackle unequal pay where it exists. Last week, we launched plans to streamline equal value tribunal procedures in another step to improve the way that the Equal Pay Act 1970 works in practice.
Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that answer. She may be aware that figures from the Office for National Statistics show that workers in part-time jobs are seven times more likely to be paid less than the minimum wage than workers in full-time jobs. As women form a higher proportion of the part-time work force, does she agree that dealing with that difference between part-time and full-time workers would do a lot to address the gender pay gap and that, in fact, a lot could be done by increasing awareness among women of their rights in relation to the minimum wage?
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the national minimum wage, which has had the largest impact on low-paid women's pay since the Equal Pay Act 1970, and he is also right that we need to do everything that we can to ensure that those rights are made clear to women. Of course we also need to pursue our target to ensure that large companies carry out equal pay reviews, where the factors that cause pay differentials are often identified and action can then be taken. That is why, for example, we have again supported the Equal Opportunities Commission to produce guidance for companies and special guidance for small companies to carry out those equal pay reviews and to take the action that will help to ensure that people are fairly rewarded at work.
Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next will be as follows:
Monday 29 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords message followed by remaining stages of the Employment Relations Bill.
Tuesday 30 March—Opposition day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "The Need for a Referendum on the Proposed EU Constitution" followed by a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to Prepare for Changes in Doctors' hours in the NHS". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message.
Wednesday 31 March—Remaining stages of the Higher Education Bill.
Thursday 1 April—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.
The provisional business for the week after the Easter recess will be:
Monday 19 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
Tuesday 20 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 21 April—Opposition day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Thursday 22 April—A motion to approve the first joint report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on visitor facilities: access to Parliament.
Friday 23 April—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Has he any idea of when we will debate the aviation White Paper? He will know that I have raised that issue on other occasions, but it is of importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House and, indeed, to the country.
With final council tax figures out today, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 6 per cent. increase is three times the rate of inflation and well above low single figures? Does he realise that council tax has gone up a whopping 70 per cent. under Labour? Does he realise how unpopular that is? Is not the reason for it the fact that the Government have laden councils with extra duties without providing adequate funding? As that is the Government's fault, will he assure the House that there will be a full debate in the Chamber before any capping takes place? Does it not all show that the old adage is true: dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour Governments put up taxes? [Interruption.]. I am glad that you enjoyed that, Mr. Speaker.
Can we have a statement from the Prime Minister about his Spanish discussions on the European constitution? His spokesman said yesterday that the Prime Minister would continue to insist
- "that anything essential for our"
- "court system cannot be changed".
In his discussions with the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, will the Prime Minister press for full information about the arms that have been sold to the IRA? Clearly, that would be helpful to the decommissioning process. Will he also ask the Libyan leader to use his special relationship with Robert Mugabe to improve the disgraceful civil rights situation in Zimbabwe? May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on both those issues, and can the Leader of the House tell us when the promised debate on Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House will take place?
Finally, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the England cricket team on their triumphant tour of the West Indies? Can he tell us what plans the Prime Minister has to welcome the team back? Has he already booked the reception at No. 10?
Mr. Hain: I know of no plans to book receptions, but I know that the English cricket team's performance has been magnificent. I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the England team on those two brilliant victories.
On the aviation White Paper, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any further information than I have been able to give before.
The council tax increases are very low by comparison not just with what they have been in recent years, but with what they were under the Conservative Government who introduced the council tax in the first place. I understand that, on average, Conservative local authorities have had higher council tax increases in this settlement than Labour ones. That is because they are not applying themselves to their work in the way that they should. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the truth is that local government has had real-terms increases in funding of more than 25 per cent. since the Government came to power compared with what happened under the Conservatives—the party that he supports and is a member of—when there were often cuts or at least freezes in real terms in spending. That is the background against which we are operating.
On tax, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that, in 1997–98, under the last Conservative Government, the tax burden was 36 per cent. of gross domestic product. This year, it is 35.7 per cent., so the overall tax burden is, in fact, lower than that applied by the Conservatives.
On the European Union constitution, we have made it clear that we intend to stick by the negotiating red lines set out in the White Paper by the Foreign Secretary, including on key issues of criminal justice and law. It is interesting that, on tackling asylum problems and international terrorism and international crime, we have co-operated and been willing to introduce qualified majority voting—in other words, to give up the veto. We did that because back markers among other member states have dragged down our security. In the case of asylum, that led to asylum shopping where they have
passed the buck to us. The new arrangements will stop that happening and provide much better protection for Britain's interests, which is what is at stake on this matter.I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not criticise the Prime Minister's visit to Libya. I welcome that, particularly because on 19 December the deputy leader of the parliamentary Conservative party welcomed the rapprochement with Libya. It is important and in the interests of Britain and the international community that countries such as Libya—which in the past have been rogue states and sponsored terrorism including, as the hon. Gentleman said, dealing with the IRA—renounce that tradition, as Libya has, and come into compliance with the international community, including on the issue of nuclear weapons. That has been an enormous benefit of the negotiation that the British Government, led by the Foreign Secretary and with the support of the Prime Minister, have been responsible for carrying out. The visit is important for taking that forward.
Robert Mugabe is certainly one of the issues that has arisen in the negotiations that have taken place and in the relationship that is now developing. It may well be—we shall have to see—that the kind of support that Libya has so shamefully given to Mugabe over recent years in particular will come to an end. I hope so, because the hon. Gentleman and I share the view that the sooner Mugabe's despotic rule in Zimbabwe ends, the better not just for the people of Zimbabwe but for the international community.
On when there might be a debate on Zimbabwe, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Foreign Secretary has promised one. When I am in a position to tell him when it will be, I will do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |