Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
DEPARTMENT OF
TRADE AND
INDUSTRY
8 MARCH 2005
Q180 Mr Berry: I guess I am surprised,
in my previous job as an academic, that not many academics appear
to have bothered to look at this issue, in the sense that you
ask the question what are the causes of the gender pay gap? And
clearly it is part-time, full-time, occupational segregation,
discrimination, et cetera, et cetera—the points that you
raise, Minister—and I am surprised that in all the evidence
that we have received there has not been any robust evidence suggesting
that occupational segregation accounts for X% and part-time and
full-time accounts for Y% and so on. Is it the case that this
is a question that has not been asked very much by academics,
let alone the DTI?
Jacqui Smith: I think as we showed
in our memorandum there have been a variety of areas where we
have carried out research. No, we have not addressed this particular
issue and it may well be that that is an area which deserves more
research than it is getting, and that is also why, as I have said,
I am glad that the Select Committee has decided to focus attention
on it.
Q181 Judy Mallaber: We heard from the
EOC that girls and boys under the age of 14 or so are comparatively
open-minded about the idea of taking employment in non-traditional
sectors, but once they start work they choose traditional occupations.
How good are career advisers at challenging stereotypes?
Jacqui Smith: I can refer back
to my previous occupation as a teacher in a high school here as
well. I think firstly that the EOC is absolutely right, that the
issue of occupational segregation and its impact on the gender
pay gap starts early and it starts with the sort of choices which
young men and young women make. What I would say about the quality
of careers advice, and particularly the contribution of the Connexions
Service, is that there is clear and explicit guidance to those
giving careers guidance in education (and particularly those in
the Connexion Service) that actually requires them to challenge
stereotypes. It is an explicit part of the role, for example,
of a Connexions personal adviser that they do that and that they
challenge stereotypes and raise expectations and aspirations of
young people. However, I think there are opportunities, not least
in the end-to-end review of the Connexions Service, which was
carried out in 2004, to look at the results of that review and
to ensure that its recommendations are carried forward in the
Youth Green Paper, and I know that the DfES are keen that they
should do that. We have seen the emphasis that they have placed
in the 14-19 Education and Skills White Paper on the significance
of ensuring that that information and advice is as appropriate
as it possibly could be for young people. The Government explicitly
says in that White Paper that we need to make sure that options
are " . . . determined by their aptitudes and the needs of
employers, rather than stereotypes about their gender or background."
On the subject of research we have commissioned research ourselves
in the DTI, particularly looking at young people aged 14 to 19
and the types of information that are likely to be most important
in determining their attitudes to the sorts of jobs that they
would want to do and their preferences, and we will want to use
that research, when we finish in September this year, to see whether
or not there are any practical recommendations which come out
of that that we could use for ensuring that: one, we know better
where young people get their information from; and, two, that
we therefore know better about how we can tackle stereotypes.
Without doing a commercial can I point out to the Committee that
we have of course started on this already in the DTI, with our
publication Does Sex Make a Difference? The first lesson
plan in there is a lesson plan about occupational segregation.
We produced it two years ago for International Women's Day; it
has been extremely well received by teachers; it has had to be
reprinted on several occasions and is recommended, for example,
by the NUT.
Q182 Judy Mallaber: I think the question
is how do we get some of these changes to take place in practice
in schools, and in your evidence you talk positively about actively
encouraging countering gender stereotyping in relation to work
experience, which is at a critical age when pupils can get some
idea about life in the workplace. Yet it has changed dramatically
since I last talked to any young people. In most places I know
of the pupils are asked to go and find their own work experience
placement or given a list of places to phone up, and in practice
they are not given guidance to counter those kind of stereotypes.
We were given some examples this morning of where a much more
proactive approach has been taken, but how widespread is that
and are the good intentions in an area like that really getting
out in practice into schools?
Jacqui Smith: You are right about
work experience which is for most young people, at about the age
of 15, their first contact with work. Once again, the guidance
is very clear on work experience, that part of the responsibility
is to introduce young people to experiences of work and to break
down stereotypes. I think you are right, from my time in teaching
that would have been the sort of experience that I came across.
I am not saying that it does not exist in any schools now but
the tasking of the Learning and Skills Council and other business
organisations locally, through what I think are called now Education
Business Consortia, to work with employers to help to tackle some
of those issues and to bring a more coherent approach to how we
offer work experience is likely to be having an impact. Has it
gone all the way that it needs to yet? No, I doubt that it has.
There, of course, interestingly, it is not just a Government responsibility
but I think an employer responsibility as well to see the offering
of work experience to young people as being something important
for them to help them ensure that they are getting the widest
range of young people getting an experience of their workplace
and then subsequently being able to come into the workplace and
help them with all the issues about productivity and skill shortages
which we know that occupational segregation will lead to.
Q183 Judy Mallaber: But schools will
still tend to concentrate more on academic results. Can the Government
do more to get them to focus on what happens when pupils leave
school and to make careers advice more central, and how far is
this down to Connexions or to teachers? How do you see that advice
being given?
Jacqui Smith: Let us be clear,
when I was teaching we had careers guidance that was pretty well
solely dependent on the quality of the teachers within schools.
I think Connexions has moved us on from there, and we are now
explicit in the guidance given to those Connexions advisers, as
I suggested, about the need to break down gender stereotypes.
We have a more consistent and coherent approach to finding those
work experience placements. I would slightly take issue with your
assumption that schools are only concerned about academic achievements.
Clearly there is an issue about how we improve the status of vocational
education and that was a big theme in the 14-19 White Paper, that
the development of diplomas and other routes will help to ensure
that we bring even more coherence to the vocational options that
are open at the moment. Is there more that has to be done? Yes,
there is, and DfES explicitly recognise that in the 14-19 White
Paper. But I think we have moved on quite considerably since the
time when I was in the classroom giving that sort of advice myself.
Q184 Judy Mallaber: My concern was about
more recent experiences I have heard from people. Moving on to
a slightly older age group, you note the attractions of Foundation
Degrees for older trainees who are trying to upgrade their skills
to, say, a higher technician level. But the EOC's work on apprenticeships,
they put it that they are rarely flexible enough to support "atypical
patterns of learning", which are obviously important to combine
for older trainees with domestic or other commitments. How urgently
is the Government pursuing changes in apprenticeships so that
it is easier for women and other under-represented groups to take
up places?
Jacqui Smith: That is an explicit
part of the review carried out last year of apprenticeships, of
the way in which apprenticeships are organised. In particular
there is a commitment to making apprenticeships more flexible
through the introduction of an eight-week probationary period,
of improving what is called portability, particularly by allowing
apprentices who perhaps start with one employer, and then for
a variety of reasons need to move on to others, to actually take
that part-completed apprenticeship from one apprenticeship to
another. There is work that is due to come to fruition in September
2006 bringing together the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
and the Sector Skills Councils in looking at an apprenticeship
achievement record where some of the learning can be better recorded
and therefore better transferred around. There is consideration
also, I know, about whether or not a registration scheme would
enable that flexibility and portability to be better. There are
also some quite important opportunities, I think, in terms of
what are effectively trials, pilot schemes that are happening
at the moment with respect to adult entry apprenticeships. I am
sure you will know that last year the Government made a commitment
to removing the upper age limit with respect to apprenticeships,
and some of the initial trials that have been happening in four
sectors are particularly focusing on women returners, prioritising
the needs of women returners, looking at things like how we can
better accredit prior learning and prior achievement and how we
can make sure that those apprenticeships are delivered flexibly
in order to encourage women back into them, and in fact the very
lifting of the age limit itself of course is likely to make apprenticeships
more suitable for women. In the whole area of young apprenticeships
the EOC are working with the DfES in order to make sure that in
those areas as well we tackle stereotypes. Alongside that—and
I know you talked to the LSC this morning—putting a focus
on ensuring that the LSC now collects data by gender and background
on apprenticeships, making sure that the Adult Learning Inspectorate
is responsible for quizzing both local providers and LSCs on the
gender breakdown of their apprenticeships, putting a much stronger
emphasis on the sort of information and marketing of apprenticeships,
as they have done, are important steps in ensuring that we make
progress in breaking down the gender segregation in apprenticeships,
which, if I am honest, the evidence suggests is there, but it
is clearly crucial that we break down given the very great increase
in the number of apprenticeships that are now being supported
and the growing impact of that for young people. Given what you
have said about Foundation Degrees, also the flexibility that
is developing which allows you to go through from an apprenticeship
to a Foundation Degree may well also be a very important way in
which women, and particularly older women, are able to get through
to higher education and therefore into some of the higher paid
jobs and to tackle some of the occupational segregation issues
there as well.
Q185 Judy Mallaber: Is action being taken
to look at training courses, other training and so on, to look
at how you can combine domestic commitments with that kind of
training? Also, has that been done in relation to some of our
other programmes? One piece of evidence we had suggested that
the New Deal for Skills was not being organised in a way which
made it easy to combine those commitments; similarly, that it
did not really dovetail with the criteria for the New Deal for
Lone Parents. I know they are all very complicated, all with their
own criteria, but how much effort is going in to trying to look
at all those areas to make sure that they have the maximum possibility
for people being able to combine?
Jacqui Smith: I think the details
of the activity, particularly with respect to the New Deal for
Skills and its interaction with the New Deal for Lone Parents
I do not have at my fingertips. I do know that with respect to
apprenticeships it is now possible to offer them part-time; that
there is a strong emphasis on making sure, as I suggested, that
those apprenticeships are developed as we find new ways of offering
them, and that we find precisely those sorts of different ways
of offering them which will be more flexible, that will enable
that portability, that will enable previous learning to be accredited.
All of those things are likely to enable women to access them
more easily, particularly, as you say, women who have caring responsibilities.
Q186 Judy Mallaber: It raises a continuing
structural issue about the difficulty of mainstreaming quality
issues. How far are you able, as a Department and in the Equalities
Unit, to say to DWP, "We want to look at your criteria for
these programmes; are they working?" Then you can formally
ask them—and I am sure you do try to intervene, but are
you able to have a serious impact and how far would that be something
that the Unit would be looking at?
Jacqui Smith: Explicitly it would
be something that the Unit would be looking at because since 2002-2003
we have an explicit PSA target across Government about delivering
achievable improvements in women's equality. What that has enabled
us to do is to work with other Departments, sometimes to develop
within those departments explicit targets with respect to breaking
down occupational segregation. So DfES have specific targets on
apprenticeships in fact and improving the numbers of women doing
apprenticeships in traditionally male areas. Without saying that
all of that is because of the Women and Equality Unit, nevertheless
officials do have the ability under the auspices of that PSA to
be able to have not just bilateral meetings and to bring pressure
across Government, but also to make sure that we report on that
and there is improved accountability across all Government departments
on how they are delivering on gender equality in this area as
in others. We published only in January this year the latest update
on progress with respect to delivering to that PSA and it has
within it the progress that is being made in this area.
Q187 Sir Robert Smith: You mentioned
you do not have at your fingertips the New Deal for Skills and
the interaction with New Deal for Lone Parents and the concerns
that were raised this morning, so where would be the point of
contact?
Jacqui Smith: Whose fingertips?
Q188 Sir Robert Smith: Yes.
Jacqui Smith: We would need to
look there to DWP and to DfES but I am quite happy to take responsibility
for making sure that you get a response to that question.
Mr Berry: That would be helpful.
Q189 Sir Robert Smith: One of the things
in the sector-specific approach to the problem and looking at
apprenticeships, you have dealt with some of the ways of trying
to improve participation in apprenticeships but the Equal Opportunities
Commission made it clear to us that there is a clear correlation
between areas where men predominate and skills shortages. So it
would appear therefore that it is in the interest of employers
to get more women into apprenticeships in those areas where they
have a skills shortage. From your knowledge what are employers
doing to encourage non-traditional recruits? Are they waking up
to that potential?
Jacqui Smith: Firstly, I think
your analysis is exactly right, which is why we have always made
the argument that breaking down occupational segregation and getting
non-traditional entrants into new occupations is about individual
opportunity, but it is also about productivity. The summit that
Patricia Hewitt and the Chancellor put together last October was
specifically called the Gender and Productivity Summit
and brought together not just Government organisations, not just
the EOC but also the CBI, for example, explicitly to recognise
that contribution. I think there are some good examples of where
employers in industrial sectors in particular have recognised
the importance of this challenge. The Manufacturing Forum, for
example, that I have personal responsibility for, which came out
of the update of the Manufacturing Strategy, at its first meeting
in December highlighted three areas where they thought they needed
particular action in respect to manufacturing. One of those was
skills and one was the image of manufacturing particularly as
it relates to women, and we are taking forward work there, and
that includes some very important employers, and employers, as
you suggested, are keen to get engaged in that work because they
understand the impact it is likely to have on addressing skills
shortages. The other area where we need to make that link with
productivity is obviously in terms of the work of the Regional
Development Agencies, so last week at the meeting of the RDA chairs
that I chaired we were able to bring the two Commissioners from
the Women and Work Commission to talk to RDAs and to listen to
RDAs specifically in terms of what they were doing to recognise
the links. We have some RDA pilots running at the moment in London
and the South East, and the North West, specifically looking at
women returners, linking there into their work and their responsibilities
to address both economic inactivity and getting people back into
the labour market and tackling occupational segregation in particular.
In the DTI we will be doing the research that I referred to previously
and we have some quite good examples in some specific sectors
of where the Sector Skills Councils are taking their responsibilities
to both identifying the training and skills needs of a sector
and how to address it seriously. Construction, for example, where
ConstructionSkills, the Sector Skills Council is undertaking both
specific research to identify the links between diversity and
a successful construction industry and we will be collecting stats
and we will be disseminating particular case studies to some of
the major contractors, talking about how they can profit through
diversity. And in IT we have the work that is being supported
by e-Skills, not least activities like computer clubs for girls
and other work that they are doing through the Women in IT Forum,
to address the issue of that particular sector. In all of those
you are absolutely right that what joins them together is the
argument that where you have skills shortages it makes no sense
to be recruiting from only half of the population. Employers are
recognising that and I think increasingly those links are being
seen.
Q190 Sir Robert Smith: Even more dramatically
perhaps, in your own submission you say that where the barriers
seem huge is in the area of graduates in science, engineering
and technology, trying (a) to attract them in in the first place,
and (b) to retain them. What initiatives so far have been taken
to break down the barriers to retention and how are things progressing?
Jacqui Smith: I think firstly
this is, as you suggested, a very good example of where the productivity
arguments and the fact of those economic growth arguments are
absolutely crucial. As we said in the memorandum we think we are
going to need 300,000 new science, engineering and technology
graduates over the next ten years. Patricia Hewitt back in 2002
asked Baroness Susan Greenfield to look at the issue of attracting
women into science, engineering and technology and she produced
a report, SET Fair. One of the major actions out of that
was the funding and the development of the UK Resource Centre
for science, engineering and technology, from whom I think you
have received evidence. Their explicit remit is to both ensure
that we attract in and then—not "trap"—retain
within science, engineering and technology women who will be able
to make a very important contribution. That needs to be focused
in a variety of different ways. Firstly, we need to identify good
employers and support them and give advice to them about how they
can attract and retain women. We need to act with undergraduates,
and DfES have put some specific money into the Resource Centre
in order to identify that group. We need to address the particular
issue of women returners in science, engineering and technology
because some of the evidence is that this is an area, because
it is fast moving, because it involves the most up-to-date knowledge,
where going out of the labour market is likely to make it more
difficult for you to come back in again in science, enginnering
and technology. Working with the OU, they are putting together
a women returners project, which will enable women to keep up
to date with developments that may well keep them in touch with
the whole science, engineering and technology world more generally.
Then we have the issue—which I do not underestimate—where
we have a PSA target about getting 40% of women on science, engineering
and technology boards because in all of these areas actually having
some leadership, having some role models is important, and the
Resource Centre is contributing to that through maintaining an
Expert Women Database so that we can no longer fall back on the
excuse, "There are no good women out there" because
we will have a database that tells us that there are and who they
are.
Q191 Sir Robert Smith: Would it be fair
to say at the moment that you are identifying a problem and looking
at ways of tackling it and measuring it and trying to encourage,
but at the moment maybe you are not yet able to point to specific
successful outcomes in tackling?
Jacqui Smith: Have we cracked
the problem yet? No. I think we can point to some successful progress
in terms of the Resource Centre and the sort of activities that
they are undertaking and that is well and truly up and running
and making a difference. I think we have made progress, for example,
on the target of women on science boards—we have certainly
made progress there. We are making progress—if you consider
a few years ago—in terms of getting girls and young women
to go into science, engineering and technology degrees, for example.
Where perhaps we still have the challenge is coming out of those
degrees and keeping them in the workplace and making sure they
get into senior positions. Where there is concern about making
sure that young girls in particular carry on doing science, for
example in physics, one of the things that the 14-19 White Paper
identified was the work that DTI would be doing with DfES and
the Institute of Physics to do a bit of research into why girls
give up physics.
Q192 Sir Robert Smith: And men!
Jacqui Smith: O Level chemistry
and biology as well, and what can we do to make sure that we keep
them and then put them through into higher education?
Q193 Richard Burden: Amicus gave us a
number of examples of industries where there has been at least
some "feminisation" of the workforce but that appears
to have been accompanied by a drop in pay overall, leading to
perhaps male employees who might have been sceptical about employing
women in the first place having that hostility reinforced. I wonder
what more you feel could be done to prevent employers seizing
the opportunity to perhaps overcome some gender pay gap but to
overcome it the wrong way?
Jacqui Smith: Firstly, I think
it is important that we are clear on the extent to which that
does actually happen. Where I am clear that there is a problem
is in the overall valuing of those jobs which are largely seen
as being women's jobs. So that is why one of the things the Women
and Work Commission has said today it particularly wants to take
forward work on is looking at the value attached to women's work,
particularly caring work, and what more we can do to ensure that
we make progress there. Let us be honest, some of this sometimes
comes down to straightforward stereotypes and discrimination and
there are things we can do in terms of challenging that, both
this Government and more broadly in society, and I think we are
beginning to challenge some of those things. Then there are practical
things that we can do can do as Government as an employer and
I would point to the NHS where I think that the progress they
have made on Agenda for Change, where traditionally those areas
of work which were seen as women's work, for whatever reason—and
we may have theories as to what the reasons were—have been
lower paid, has been challenged by the process that they have
gone through of actually evaluating the work and revolutionising
in many ways the pay system in order to reward that work on the
basis of what people are actually doing as opposed to what the
gender of those people who have traditionally been in those occupations
has been. So that has been a very good use of the Government as
an employer in order to challenge some of those stereotypes and
to result in changes in the pay system. So, yes, I think there
always has been an issue about valuing women's work; we do need
to get more to the bottom of that, and the Women and Work Commission
will do it; and we need where we can directly as a Government,
as an employer, have an impact, as we have in the NHS, and make
a difference as well, and I think we are.
Q194 Richard Burden: You mentioned in
some cases you are dealing with straight discrimination, for some
women working in non-traditional sectors, non-traditional roles.
The problem might be pretty overt; bullying, harassment and so
on. You said there is a range of things that the Government can
do about that but in practical terms what support do you think
can be provided to women in that situation and are there more
things that could be done or could at least be considered?
Jacqui Smith: Firstly, the fact
that Amicus have raised this is a good example of the contribution
that can often be made by trade unions by supporting workers in
those areas, and this identifies for us the fact that this needs
to be an area where we work in partnership. Where we identify
the need to be more explicit in legislation then we have to and
will make those changes. For example, we have an opportunity with
the implementation of the Equal Treatment Directive coming from
Europe to put into legislation what is largely recognised through
case law, but could helpfully be made more explicit, about, for
example, the illegality of pregnancy discrimination, certain changes
to the legislation with respect to harassment. We could obviously
provide specific support as Government to support people who feel
that either they are facing discrimination or harassment through,
for example, ACAS. We can look, when it is set up in 2007, at
what the Single Commission for Equality and Human Rights can do
to provide that sort of support. We can consider—and undoubtedly
will—in the review that we have announced of Equality Legislation,
just a fortnight ago, whether or not there are changes that we
need to make to legislation in order to address these particular
issues.
Q195 Linda Perham: Minister, we touched
on, through Judy, flexible time work and I am sure you will agree
that one of the main barriers to women coming back to work, particularly
in higher paid occupations, is difficulties in fitting in with
domestic commitments, not just looking after children but older
relatives, the particular caring role. When we took evidence from
other organisations some thought that it might be a good idea
to make it mandatory for employers to offer part-time or flexible
work and others felt that it was not necessary. You touched earlier
on about not wanting to ignore half the workforce. With employers
perhaps realising that they should be using the other half of
the workforce is there something to be said for leaving it to
employers seeing it as a shortage and thinking, "It is silly
to ignore half the workforce", or should we make it mandatory
because there seems to be a contradiction in the evidence that
we have had and clearly that would require legislation, or could
we just extend the current provision to make employers prove that
they considered a request properly and that their grounds for
refusal were reasonable?
Jacqui Smith: Firstly, I think
that this whole area of the combination of caring responsibilities
and work, all the evidence, such that we have, suggests it is
a very important contributor to both occupational segregation
and to the gender pay gap which is why, of course, it is something
that as a Government we have taken so seriously in terms of making
progress on it. Whether or not it is better support for women
in terms of maternity pay and leave in order that you are more
likely to be able to return to work after a reasonable period
at home with your children, rather than give up work and subsequently
go back to work, as we suggested in my response to the first question,
in a lower grade and lower paid job. Whether it is recognising
that not just mothers but fathers as well have responsibility
for caring and what more we can do to make sure that it is possible
for fathers to play that role. Or whether or not—and I think
this is where you were focusing your question—it is on what
we have done and what more we can do with respect to flexible
working. Firstly, I would have to say that the way in which we
have legislated with respect to flexible working has been a success.
The law that has introduced the right to request and the duty
to consider for employers of parents of children under six or
disabled children under 18, within its first year impacted on
nearly one million working parents—as many people as were
impacted by the National Minimum Wage to begin with. I think it
is worthwhile remembering the history of how we got to the design
of it. This was designed by bringing together employers and trade
unions to work out the most appropriate way of doing it because
the objective was that what we have to do here is to develop the
ability to have a dialogue about flexible working, because one
of the difficulties about legislating is that there are a variety
of different ways in which people might want to work flexibly
in order to help them to stay working. It might be that making
it mandatory to offer part-time work is not the most appropriate
way; for some people it might be that they need flexibility about
when they start or finish or flexibility around school holidays—there
are all sorts of different ways. What we need is a recognition
of the economic benefit of offering flexible working, which we
had previously begun to develop through the Work-Life Balance
Campaign, and then the ability to engage in that dialogue with
your employer. All the evidence, as I suggested, of the first
year is that we had over 900,000 requests and 800,000 of those
were met completely or in part. We have employers telling us that
the recent survey suggested that that legislation had provided
a legal base from which employers were willing to go further.
So seven out of ten employers said that they were willing to consider
flexible working requests from the whole of their workforce, not
just from those who were determined by the legislation. So do
I believe at this moment that making it a statutory requirement
in the way that you are talking about would take us forward? I
am not convinced it would because, one, I think we have made some
progress; and, two, as we set down in the Work and Families Consultation
document that we published a week ago on Monday, where we think
the next development should be is, as you yourself said, in identifying
that it is not just the parents of children who have challenges
in respect of flexible working but it may well be those who are
caring for older relatives or others in their family. So I think
that consulting on how we can develop the legislation to include
those as well is the most important priority and that is what
we set down in the consultation document.
Q196 Linda Perham: Talking about legislation,
the Equal Pay Act is considered to have major weaknesses, not
least in the area of proving that the comparator cited is "work
of equal value" and a number of our witnesses thought that
some of the most unsatisfactory features of the current situation
could be addressed if group actions were permitted. Is the group
action route something that the Government might consider as an
amendment to the Equal Pay Act, or would that be part of a wider
revision of the Equal Pay Act?
Jacqui Smith: In order to bring
in group actions to the Equal Pay Act, not only would it be a
fundamental revision of the Equal Pay Act, which depends largely
on the ability to be able to look at an individual's circumstances
and compare that with another individual—and it has been
the important basis of that legislation for the last 30 years,
wherein I think we have made progress using that legislation—but
the idea in UK law of having group actions would involve a fundamental
review of our whole approach, without putting it too broadly,
to the way in which we expect individuals to take action. So it
would be a pretty fundamental change both in equal pay legislation
and in UK law. Before we would get to the point where we would
want to consider that I think we should be clear that we have
done everything that we can do in order to make sure that the
current legislation is working better, and we have taken action
to make sure that that happens, introducing equal pay questionnaires,
so that we are getting an earlier idea about the information which
may enable negotiations to happen before you get on to having
to take legal action. This issue particularly relates in respect
to equal value cases, and improving the way in which equal value
cases operate—which frankly are taking far too long to come
to fruition—by, as we did last October, changing the rules
for the tribunals, allowing them to have specialist tribunals,
allowing them to have much stronger case management so that the
cases do not take as long as they did, so that the tribunal is
able to grip that. New powers for managing independent experts'
advice, all of those things, and of course the progress that we
are making on equal pay reviews, we need to evaluate and to see
whether or not they are working before we undertake what would
effectively be a fundamental rewriting of the equal pay legislation.
Q197 Linda Perham: You say it would be
fundamental and obviously it would, but given that part of the
problem with the gender pay gap, which has reduced but not enough
over the 35 years of equal pay being in operation, and because
of the problem of occupational segregation, do you not think that
group action might be a major way of addressing the problem of
women being stuck in great groups where they are underpaid compared
to male occupations?
Jacqui Smith: I think you yourself
identified the reason why it might not do everything that is claimed
for it, and that is of course that what we now understand is that
even with respect to equal value cases quite often the problem
is more fundamental even than the straightforward discrimination
that you could address through equal pay legislation, and it does
relate to questions like occupational segregation and it does
relate to issues about how we value work that has large numbers
of women in it. It does relate to the challenges that women in
particular face from being more likely to be in part-time work
or more likely to combine their work with family responsibilities.
So what we now recognise as the most effective ways forward are
likely to be addressing those broader and probably more intractable
issues which is precisely what we have asked the Women and Work
Commission to focus on, and they will be looking at how equal
pay legislation works, and we clearly want to look at what they
said in their recommendations. But my feeling is that it is addressing
those broader issues that is likely to enable us to make the most
progress.
Q198 Mr Berry: There have been calls
for permitting group actions for years and years and years; it
was an issue that has been bubbling away quite ferociously for
some time. You say it would require a fundamental change in legislation,
well, Government rightly from time to time engages in some pretty
fundamental changes in legislation. I am surprised, given the
strength of feeling on this issue that we receive as a Committee,
but we have all known around this table for years and years what
the demand has been. The Equal Pay Act has been a progressive
measure, no question about that, but the lack of ability to engage
in group action severely limits what can be done. Can the Government
not be encouraged to look at this again?
Jacqui Smith: The Government can
always be encouraged to take progressive measures, Roger, but
there has to be a certain amount of evidence that that is likely
to be the most impacting thing that could happen.
Q199 Mr Berry: So if this Committee could
produce some good evidence—as I am sure we can—that
group actions would be a step forward, you would welcome it obviously?
Jacqui Smith: This Committee or
the Women and Work Commission or, for example, the Discrimination
Law Review that we have set up. Our minds are not closed, but
I think there are other areas that are perhaps more important
for progress at the moment.
|
