Conclusions and recommendations
1. It
is not yet clear how successful the attempts to spread best practice
in relation to the careers advice and work experience placements
arranged by schools have been. It will be some years before any
improvements will feed through into the workforce. In the meantime,
the Department for Children, Schools and Families must realise
the importance of these apparently 'extra' duties of careers advice
and work experience to achieving the Government's equality aims
and must give more support and funding to the provision of those
services in schools. (Paragraph 10)
2. Employers—especially
smaller companies without HR departments—find it difficult
to devote the time and resources needed first to set up good work
experience placements and secondly to ensure that they have met
all the safety requirements. There is clearly a role for Sector
Skills Councils, Chambers of Commerce and trade organisations,
as well as Learning and Skills Councils, in providing information
and helping companies to forge stronger business-education partnerships
at a local level. (Paragraph 11)
3. While we welcome
the initiatives to encourage women who wish to do so to train
in non-traditional fields of work, we are pleased that some of
the initiatives are focusing on encouraging women to take more
senior and responsible positions in traditional sectors, such
as the project by Improve (the Sector Skills Council for the food
and drink industry) to give NVQ3 training to 300 women workers
in food manufacturing to enable them to become supervisors or
team leaders; and Asset Skill's programme to teach workers in
the cleaning sector management skills. Tackling 'horizontal segregation'—the
dominance of managerial and professional jobs by men in sectors
where the majority of the employees are women—is as important
in opening up opportunities for women as ending 'vertical' or
sectoral segregation. (Paragraph 13)
4. The various pilots
launched by the Government are welcome. By definition, it is likely
that some will be more successful than others. It would be a wasted
opportunity if any good practice learned were left to die with
the pilots themselves. We recommend that, before the pilots are
evaluated, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
(DIUS) plans carefully how to ensure the continuance and extension
or roll-out of the successful initiatives (Paragraph 16)
5. Helping with childcare,
though welcome, is not the complete solution to the inaccessibility
of some training courses to those unable to undertake them full-time
in normal working hours. We are concerned that the Ofsted review
of the flexibility of training by adult education providers has
only recently been launched. We expect its findings as to best
practice to be acted upon with more urgency than has been shown
in relation to this problem so far. (Paragraph 19)
6. We recognise that
the Government needs to focus funding if it is to achieve its
aim of ensuring that 80% of the population has Level 2 skills.
However, it is a cause for regret if colleges are having to abandon
useful courses or approaches to address under-representation of
women in certain occupations. We recommend that, if colleges produce
evidence that they are taking initiatives to deal with gender
inequality, then the Minister should consider providing additional
funding or at least allow them some discretion in the use of existing
funding so that they can develop these initiatives. After all,
this would also benefit those young people without Level 2 skills
on whom the Government is currently concentrating. (Paragraph
20)
7. We believe that
the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights should investigate
the reasons for the gender pay gap among apprentices, and that
the Low Pay Commission should be asked to consider practical ways
of rectifying the situation. (Paragraph 23)
8. Simply increasing
the number of apprenticeships will not, in itself, help women
to better paid jobs if all that happens is they continue to choose
traditional types of work. It is disappointing that women are
less likely than men to complete apprenticeships in the traditionally
male-dominated sectors. In the rush to increase the number of
apprenticeships, the Government must not lose sight of the need
to promote greater equality through this form of training. (Paragraph
25)
9. Like the Women
and Work Commission, we consider that 'Women Like Us' provides
an interesting and potentially very useful model for involving
social enterprise in giving careers support and guidance to women
and placing them in good quality jobs with suitable hours. We
support the Commission's recommendation for pilots in areas round
the country and urge further action to promote such pilots, including
through discussions with Regional Development Agencies and local
authorities. (Paragraph 28)
10. Since our predecessors
reported, there appears to be wider recognition of the fact that
there are insufficient training opportunities for women in non-traditional
occupations, and measures are being taken to address this and
to spread best practice. However, we are concerned that neither
the need to tackle occupational segregation in general nor the
specific problems faced by older women have been taken fully into
account in the Government's priorities. The EOC emphasised the
fact that because the Government's Skills Strategy focussed on
those without basic qualifications, it excluded many women returners
from support. Arguing that accessing ways back into work through
advice and guidance, updating old skills or retraining in sectors
where women have traditionally been under-represented was a major
challenge, it alleged that this challenge was yet unmet through
mainstream government programmes. We agree. The drive for a large
number of training places, focused particularly on the younger
and less qualified, threatens to leave older and/or slightly better
qualified women behind. This is both unfair and imprudent, given
that most of those who will form the UK's 2020 workforce are already
at work and that a significant proportion of these are women.
We urge the Government to work with employers and trade unions
to make better use of the experience and skills within the existing
workforce by ensuring better training and development opportunities
for women, whether they work full-time or part-time. (Paragraph
29)
11. While our Report
focuses on occupational segregation and ways to break down some
of the traditional barriers, we regard it as equally important
to encourage a better valuation of work traditionally carried
out predominantly by women if there is to be progress in reducing
the gender pay gap. In paragraph 13 above, we have welcomed initiatives
to encourage women to take on more senior positions in traditional
sectors. We note that the Secretary of State acknowledged the
need to ensure that the work traditionally done by women, such
as in the caring sector, was not undervalued, and that she also
emphasised the role of quality part-time work in achieving an
improvement to women's pay, using their skills and experience
more fully and raising their status at work. (Paragraph 30)
12. There is a need
for increased pay transparency but, as our predecessors noted,
the experience of equal pay audits has been mixed. Some of the
criticisms of them would be met if an effective 'light touch'
approach were developed. We were encouraged by the description
of the prototype 'light touch' check given by the Secretary of
State and recommend that the Government, the CBI, the British
Chamber of Commerce, Regional Development Agencies and other representative
bodies make strenuous efforts to publicise this tool when it is
launched generally, so that the use of it swiftly becomes best
practice among smaller businesses. (Paragraph 41)
13. Another important
criticism, that equal pay checks were of doubtful effectiveness
in making companies take the issue of occupational segregation
more seriously, could also be met if pay differences were regarded
as a proxy for inequality more generally and the form of the audit
required employers to consider wider questions such as why, for
example, most women in their organisation were employed in the
lower grade jobs and most of the managers were men. (Paragraph
42)
14. However useful
equal pay reviews might be at uncovering problems, in themselves
they would not ensure that any problems were tackled. We can see
the attractions of the public sector gender equality duty in this
regard, with its requirements to publish an action plan, report
on progress, and take the actions described in the plan in a specified
period. The duty also is not prescriptive about the ways to achieve
the stated objectives: it leaves decisions on means to the authority
implementing the duty. However, it is too early as yet to judge
the success of the duty, which came into force only in April.
We recommend that the Government evaluate its effectiveness in
two years' time and, if it has been successful, the Government
should extend the duty to the private sector. Certainly, if the
pay gap continues to decline at such a slow rate, the Government
must look at such further measures as the extension of the gender
equality duty and consider making pay audits mandatory. (Paragraph
43)
15. Although the Discrimination
Law Review suggested that there were disadvantages to the amendments
to legislation which have been proposed by our witnesses, the
current law is clearly not working well. There has been such a
glut of equal pay claims against local authority employers that
neither they nor the tribunal system can manage them; and the
heavy involvement of 'no win, no fee' lawyers in this area shows
the potential for litigation to spread into other public sector
areas including those which have conducted pay reviews, such as
the NHS 'Agenda for Change' programme, and through the private
sector as well. This can also make it difficult to negotiate agreements
to incorporate effective equal pay audits and may discourage employers
from embarking on pay structure reviews. More fundamentally, given
the number of claims, the law does not appear to be effective
in preventing discrimination in the first place. The Discrimination
Law Review failed to address these problems adequately. We therefore
recommend the Government to look again at the possibility of introducing
provisions to allow hypothetical comparators and representative
actions, and to simplify the law in relation to time limits for
bringing cases, remedies and defences for employers. This would
not reduce the difficulty of reaching a fair view of issues like
'equal value' in each case, but it would reduce some of the complexity
of the law as it currently stands. (Paragraph 49)
16. We were particularly
concerned that at present there is no obligation on an employer
who has lost an equal pay case to ensure that other members of
the workforce are being paid appropriately. We recommend that
employment tribunals are given the power to order employers to
conduct equal pay reviews and act upon the findings. (Paragraph
50)
17. On the immediate
problem faced by local authorities, we recommend that the Government
should examine the role played by some 'no win, no fee' lawyers
in stimulating claims which further complicate the situation and
are sometimes contrary to the best interests of the claimant.
(Paragraph 51)
18. We consider that
the Quality Part Time Work Initiative has been under-funded, given
the importance of quality part-time work in relation to both reducing
occupational segregation and tackling the worse, and more obstinately
static, gender pay gap which is that in relation to women's hourly
pay for part-time work. We recommend that the Government increase
the funding to the initial target of £5 million, and seek
the help of the CBI, TUC and similar organisations in proposing
initiatives among companies which would otherwise be unaware of
or reluctant to try best practice. (Paragraph 54)
19. The Government
said in April 2007 that it will continue to consider the case
for extending the right to request flexible working to the parents
of older children, taking into account the impact of the extension
to carers, and working with business." We agree that the
right should be extended in consultation with employers and their
representatives; but we believe that while the Government's thinking
appears to be limited to parents and carers, this ignores the
wider changes in work which mean that more people will change
career, have portmanteau careers or wish to work part time at
the beginning or end of their working lives, and it also risks
leaving flexible working in a (perceived if not actual) ghetto
as ' a woman's problem' and a sign of a lack of commitment among
nearly half the workforce. We recommend the Government consider
a gradual extension of the right to request flexible working to
the whole workforce. (Paragraph 58)
20. In relation to
Amicus's suggestion that employees should be given the right to
challenge any refusal by their employer to grant a request for
flexible working at an employment tribunal, we share our predecessors'
view that as yet this has not proved necessary as there has been
no evidence of widespread refusal by employers to agree to requests.
However, the Government should keep the situation under review.
(Paragraph 59)
21. There are good
examples of successful businesswomen who can act as role models.
However, progress is patchy and it will take some time before
the number of these pioneers increases to the sort of critical
mass which makes women top managers and entrepreneurs seem commonplace
rather than exceptional in the UK. (Paragraph 61)
22. There is clearly
a need for more training and advice to be made available to managers
to give them the ability and confidence to adopt new ways of working
and of nurturing talent in order to enable their employees to
use their skills, to their own benefit as well as that of the
company. We support the CBI's suggestion that the CEHR should
make a priority of issuing guidance on what types of actions would
be considered discriminatory and what could be seen as positive
action. (Paragraph 65)
23. Given the difficulty
of bringing about cultural change, which requires the joint efforts
of both trade unions and management, and the success of the union
learning representatives, we, are disappointed that the Government's
support for union equality representatives appears lukewarm (Paragraph
67)
24. We welcome the
examples our witnesses gave of close working and co-operation
in spreading good practice between trade unions and employers
organisations. We hope that they will continue to be able to build
on this now that the immediate flurry of activity after publication
of the Women and Work Commission's report has subsided. (Paragraph
69)
25. We were told of
numerous imaginative and practical initiatives to address gender
inequality in the workplace, both within and outside government
programmes. However, we are concerned that many of the organisations
taking part in government programmes are either companies which
have already shown leadership in this area or are in the broader
public sector, such as Royal Mail and universities. We hope that
best practice will be taken up more widely and recommend the Government,
via the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the department
that has the central role in communicating with business, the
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to
make spreading best practice in this area a priority. We would
like to see the spread of best practice through the economy adopted
as one of the actions both the CEHR and BERR pledge themselves
to take under the public sector equality duty (Paragraph 70)
26. It appears from
our short survey that departments are making progress in implementation
of the Gender Equality Duty, and that this is leading to actions
to promote equality rather than just the establishment of formal
processes. However, it is obvious that the pursuit of gender equality
through positive action (rather than merely the avoidance of discrimination)
is a new departure for some departments, and they appear to find
it easier to adopt appropriate policies for their own employees
than to examine the effect of their policies on their clients.
There are some fine examples of best practice, which have yet
to spread. We look to the Secretary of State for Equality to maintain
pressure on all departments to catch up with the best. The three-yearly
review of the Schemes provides a good opportunity to do so. (Paragraph
76)
27. It would be regrettable
if some of the useful actions undertaken to comply with the public
sector Gender Equality Duty were lost as a result of a 'tidying-up'
process. There is an argument for introducing a consistent approach
to the various equality duties, and the focus of the gender duty
on outcomes is the appropriate model. However, this does not mean
that there has to be a single equality duty: the barriers faced
by different groups vary, as do the solutions which need to be
applied. Legislative neatness should not take priority over a
flexible approach. (Paragraph 78)
28. We consider that
the advice given by the Office of Government Commerce in its guidance,
Social issues in purchasing, is too timid. There appears to be
greater scope for public bodies to require of their suppliers
not only simple compliance with anti-discrimination legislation,
as recommended now, but also demonstration of active commitment
to equality principles in the recruitment, terms and conditions
of staff. Indeed, we believe that if they do not, public bodies
could be challenged as being in breach of their duty to promote
gender equality. We accept that it may be easier for larger than
smaller companies and for those supplying services rather than
goods, to show how they are promoting gender equality, but procurement
guidelines already make such distinctions between what it is reasonable
to expect of different types of firm. We urge the OGC to review
its guidance accordingly. (Paragraph 84)
29. If, for the sake
of certainty, the Government concludes it is necessary to introduce
a statutory duty to promote equalities through procurement, the
proposed Equality Bill appears to be a good opportunity to do
so. (Paragraph 85)
30. In common with
a number of our witnesses, we were disappointed that the Government's
initial response to the report of the Women and Work Commission—the
Action Plan published in September 2006—failed to commit
the Government to providing the money necessary to implement the
recommendations, lacked any timetable (however aspirational) by
which progress could be judged, and generally gave the appearance
of only a half-hearted acceptance of the outcome of the Commission.
The one year on report showed that a substantial number of initiatives
were in hand, some of which pre-dated the Commission's report,
and greater progress was being made than one might have feared
from the initial response. However, there was still the appearance
of a lack of co-ordination and direction: it was not clear whether
the then Minister for Women was able, amidst her other tasks,
to maintain oversight of this complex and cross-cutting area.
We are reassured by the current Secretary of State for Equality's
obvious commitment to this policy and infer from her evidence
to us that she intends not only to co-ordinate the efforts of
her colleagues but also to keep up pressure on them to take into
consideration and address gender equality issues in all their
policies and procedures, in relation to both their clients and
their employees. To ensure that this commitment is translated
into effective practice, we recommend that all Select Committees
should see monitoring in this area as being an important part
of their remit and that the relevant Select Committee should continue
to press the Secretary of State for Equality to give regular reports
on progress. (Paragraph 92)
| 
