|
Despite thirty years of equal pay legislation, the gender pay gap remains, although it is narrowing. It is hard to eliminate, because men and women tend to work in different occupations and traditional female occupations tend to be lower paid and lower valued than men's. But such occupational segregation limits the pool of recruits available to employers, even though harnessing and extending the skills of all is increasingly recognised as vital for the future health of the economy.
In its 2005 report, the Women and Work Commission made 40 recommendations to tackle job segregation and the gender pay gap, many of which were similar to those put forward in our predecessor Committee's report. We wanted to examine what action had been taken to implement those recommendations and to identify any further steps needed.
We were concerned at the lack of a timetable and committed funding in the government's initial response to the Commission's report, but note that the one year on report shows greater progress and there are a number of initiatives in hand. The Secretary of State for Equality is committed to the policy and to coordinating a positive response on gender equality issues within departments. We recommend that all Select Committees should see monitoring progress on gender equality as an important part of their remit, to ensure the Secretary of State's commitment is translated into effective practice.
The causes of occupational segregation start with the assumptions made by families and in schools about the roles appropriate for boys and girls. Despite some positive examples of careers advice and work experience placements, additional funding is required. We urge the Department for Children, Schools and Families to give higher priority to this. Sector Skills Councils and other public bodies should help employers forge stronger local business-education partnerships to help break down barriers.
There are insufficient training opportunities for women in non-traditional occupations and, until recently, little advice available for older women who want to change their work direction or who return after a break. Government pilots have been encouraging, but it is essential that these are evaluated and successful initiatives are rolled out in other sectors and areas. Other initiatives such as the social enterprise Women Like Us also have a part to play. If college courses are too rigidly structured, women can find it hard to participate; we urge the Government to act on the findings of the recently-launched Ofsted review of the flexibility of training by adult education providers, and to provide additional funds if necessary.
The substantial extension in apprenticeships now proposed is very welcome but must not just follow traditional occupational breakdowns. We urge the Government to keep sight of the need to promote greater equality through this form of training and ask that the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and Low Pay Commission examine the gender pay gap among apprentices.
It is important not just to look at occupational segregation but also address the undervaluation of 'traditional' women's jobs. Witnesses pointed out the minimum wage had reduced the pay gap for the lowest paid jobs. We also welcome initiatives to encourage women into more senior and skilled positions in those sectors dominated by women.
The dearth of quality part-time jobs was identified by witnesses as a waste of the experience and skills of many older women and one of the main reasons for the persistence of the gender pay gap. We urge the Government to increase funding for the Quality Part-Time Work Initiative to the original £5million target.
The Government should consider a gradual extension of the right to request flexible working to the whole workforce to recognise the wider changes in work that can affect any employee.
A number of witnesses suggested that the extension to the private sector of the gender equality duty imposed on the public sector from April 2007 could encourage greater transparency and positive action. It is too still early to judge the success of this duty. But it is clearly the case that the gender pay gap remains worryingly stubborn. It is exacerbated by the fact that women may not push for pay rises and promotion in the way that men do. So we recommend that if the pay gap continues to decline only slowly, the Government should look at further measures such as the extension of the gender equality duty and consider making pay audits mandatory. We welcome the development of a 'light touch' audit which may be easier for employers to use than the traditional equal pay audit in examining their own occupational and pay structures.
Many of our witnesses were placing great hopes on the Discrimination Law Review to strengthen and simplify the existing legislation. The Review has not adequately addressed the failings in legislation demonstrated by the number of current cases outstanding. The Government should look again at the issues of hypothetical comparators, representative actions, time limits and other issues which were not taken up in the Review. We also recommend the Government examine the role played by some 'no win no fee' lawyers in the current public sector equal pay claims.
We look to the Secretary of State for Equality to ensure that best practice on breaking down gender barriers and promoting equality in government departments is extended to all. But we urge caution about the proposed single equality duty if this will limit the flexibility needed to deal with issues affecting different disadvantaged groups.
In our predecessors' recent report on UK manufacturing and public procurement we argued that there was more scope for greater use of public procurement to promote social policies. Public authorities could use the £125 billion a year spent by the public sector in acquiring goods and service as leverage to promote gender equality as well as other social aims. We consider that the advice given by the Office of Government Commerce is too timid and should be reviewed. Indeed, we believe that public bodies are open to challenge for breaching their duty to promote gender equality if they fail to ask their suppliers and contractors to demonstrate active commitment to equality principles in both their staffing practices and their provision of goods and services.
| 
