Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
RT HON
HARRIET HARMAN,
QC, MP, MS JANICE
SHERSBY AND
MS ANN-MARIE
FIELD
29 OCTOBER 2007
Q200 Miss Kirkbride: Out of interest,
what occupations would you identify as being the ones which are
undervalued in terms of their male comparative roles?
Ms Harman: I would think caring.
Q201 Miss Kirkbride: Which should
be compared with what traditional male role?
Ms Harman: If you look across
the whole range of people at work in any particular sector where
there are men and women working together, occupationally segregated
but within the same employer, you will see women who perhaps have
the same levels of qualifications but being lower paid, as I say
particularly if they are likely to be in caring work. I would
say traditionally, and this is just a generalisation, the skills,
commitment and experience which people bring to work for caring,
whether it is for children or older people, have been undervalued.
That has changed quite a lot recently with the focus on the importance
of people working with young children, but there is still a backlog.
Q202 Chairman: Can I ask you about
structures because we identify the same factors over and over
again of some of the causes for inequality in the workplace, be
it on pay or other issues, and the question is how we do something
about it. Your own Women and Equality Unit has jumped around from
department to department, the Minister for Women jumps around
and now I am trying to get my head around the press release on
what the Government Equalities Office is and your role within
that and, for example, how that ties in with having a Sub-Committee
on Equalities chaired by Ed Miliband. What do you see as your
role, and do you think you have got the clout and the power to
be able to drive the gender equalities issue across departments?
We have been slightly confused as to which ministers to invite
here. We have tried three different departments and we ended up
writing to all of them. Do you have the power to make it happen,
and what are the structures which might enable us to get over
some of the blockages that we have had in the past?
Ms Harman: Because the Government
is committed to tackling inequality, to tackling discrimination,
to tackling child poverty and unfairness, there is an overriding
political imperative for whatever machinery we have to work. You
can sometimes have the most brilliant machinery and without the
political commitment nothing happens, or you can have an asymmetry
of approach but it works to deliver. I do think the current structure
we have got is disappointing if people do not know who to contact
in terms of outside organisations or select committees or parliamentary
colleagues. It is a problem if people do not know who to contact,
but I hope whatever point people arrive at they meet a willingness
within government to take these issues very seriously and take
them forward. I regard this as one of the most important things
that I am here to do in government.
Q203 Chairman: I do not think the
problem is knowing who to contact, we know that if we want to
look at how we deal with segregation or models coming out during
schooling we should talk to the schools department, if we want
to look at apprenticeships we go somewhere else, so we know that
it requires action in every department, that is the whole nature
of the issue. The question we would ask is how do we make sure
there is sufficient imperative across departments to put it higher
up in the agenda. Do you think we have got it right? Is that your
job or is your job something different from that? How will the
Equalities Office operate in relation to that? Will it be interfering
in every different department or will it have a different role?
Ms Harman: Yes, it certainly will
be, and that is a very important part of my job. I do not know
whether Janice wants to say something at this point as well about
it is actual ways of working.
Ms Shersby: Of course we have
informal ways of working with our colleagues across government,
but we do also have, and will have, some more formal structures
to take forward our equalities work. Perhaps, in particular, it
might be worth mentioning the Equalities Public Service Agreement,
which includes an indicator on the gender pay gap. That puts the
gender pay gap at the heart of the PSA agreements which will be
taken forward over the next three years. For that particular piece
of work we will, for example, have a programme board chaired by
our Director General which will bring together departments that
have agreed to work with us to help us deliver that. On other
issues, for example working with colleagues on the Minister for
Women's priorities, we have some more informal arrangements at
the moment, but those are arrangements we have worked through
with those colleagues who are most directly involved in helping
us on those priorities and those are very close working relationships.
Q204 Roger Berry: Secretary of State,
the Government's response to the Commission's report last September,
the Action Plan, has been criticised by a number of people on
the grounds that the response was somewhat short on details. It
is true that most of the 40 recommendations were accepted by the
Government, but then virtually all of the recommendations had
no timescales attached to them at all. The partially accepted
ones tended to be ones which involved public spending. For example,
the £5 million modernisation fund to support capacity building
for equality reps, that was partially accepted. Do you accept
that a real action plan has got to have timetables and specific
commitments for it to be truly credible? With a bit of hindsight,
was not the Government's Action Plan last year a bit vague?
Ms Harman: The first thing an
action plan stands or falls by is the policy objective. I think
there was a view which could have been taken that perhaps the
policy objective could have been a bit tougher or a bit sharper
and could have been more ambitious. I am certainly looking not
just at how we are taking forward the existing Action Plan in
terms of making sure that it has got timescales, resources behind
it, and milestones, but whether or not our response is sufficient
to the task that we regard as so important. I am looking afresh
at whether or not we have been ambitious enough because I think
we probably need to be more ambitious in terms of the pace of
change we expect and the amount of commitment we are prepared
to give to it across government.
Q205 Roger Berry: I welcome that
reply. That seems to suggest that in terms of the objectives and
the strategy, that is reasonably clear, the various components
of that, but are you acknowledging that we do need timetables
to achieve each of these objectives, there is no point in just
saying, "Well, we are going to have a look at this and we
might do more here and there", there will be timetables which
indicate when certain things will be undertaken and also there
has got to be the appropriate funding?
Ms Harman: Yes.
Q206 Roger Berry: That was absent
last September in the Government's Action Plan, was it not?
Ms Harman: I do think we could
look again at how we give people more of a sense of confidence
and certainty of the progress which is going to be made on this.
People are entitled to expect that we do not have just commitment
but that we have some real timescales against which people can
measure progress backed up by resources. Ann-Marie, would you
like to add anything on that point?
Ms Field: One of the main reasons
for not having a comprehensive timetable—and I agree, it
would be a very useful thing to have just to keep track of things,
apart from anything else, over 40 recommendations—was there
was such a wide range of issues in there, things like the ten-year
childcare strategy and the strategy for the Olympics for 2012.
Of course, there are some things we have already achieved, or
have already set up, and they were reported in the one-year on
report which we did in April this year. For instance, the Equality
Part-Time Work Fund is already underway, the projects are underway,
and we are already starting to see results from that. We probably
do need to set it out as more of a milestones and timetable but
I would not want the progress we have made to be ignored as well.
Ms Harman: Perhaps we can do that
by way of an interim situation.
Q207 Chairman: Was anything extra
done as a result of that and the report or, from what Ann-Marie
is saying, do you think there was a number of things in train
anyway and inevitably that was going to be reflected in both the
report and the response? Do you feel action has happened in new
areas as a result of their report?
Ms Harman: As a result of the
Women and Work Commission Report?
Q208 Chairman: Yes.
Ms Harman: Yes, absolutely. It
has brought a focus that there might not have otherwise been,
but could we do more, yes, I am sure we could do more. I think
we will take that as a suggestion, we should take stock and get
back and update on that. Discussions go on all the time. For example,
I have just been discussing with David Lammy how things are taken
forward within his department and I know you have talked to him.
I have just been discussing with John Healey how he takes forward
questions of equal pay within local government. Discussions are
going on all the time, but I think it is very important that we
do be outward facing in our reporting on where we have got to
on all of this and, also, keep asking ourselves is it time to
up the objectives.
Q209 Roger Berry: If, for example,
we were looking at a local council's Equality Action Plan, we
would expect timescales and specific targets. All I am saying
is, as politely as I can, if a local authority had produced an
action plan response like this with very little in terms of specific
commitments to meet specific targets by specific points in time,
we would probably say, "It's a bit vague. Go back and try
again", and that is what I am politely trying to convey.
I think you have accepted that point.
Ms Harman: We have definitely
received that point and we will come back to you with that via
the Chairman, perhaps.
Roger Berry: Thank you.
Q210 Chairman: We had a number of
questions we were going to ask you about legislation, which we
will come back to later on. As in Business Questions last week
you implied that responses you had received on the consultation
paper on the Single Equality Bill had raised issues which were
maybe rather more radical than could be embraced in coming forward
with an immediate Equality Bill ready for Parliament. It suggested
that you were likely to go further than what was in the Discrimination
Law Review and, indeed, many of the responses we have received
have suggested that the Discrimination Law Review as it stands
does not go far enough. Following that response, can you tell
us what areas of policy you are reconsidering and whether, indeed,
you are planning to go very much further and make many more changes
than were suggested in the review?
Ms Harman: The notion of a Single
Equality Bill is basically as its name says, it is a consolidation
exercise, a consolidation of lots of different bits which have
gone over the latter half of the last century and this century.
The initial concept was that it would be a consolidation exercise.
If you have had 50 years or so of bits of legislation, it is important
that you do pull it all together, so I think consolidation is
not an unworthy thing to be doing. The idea that all we can do
is consolidate rather than look to make further progress I am
certainly questioning and that was certainly questioned in many
of the responses we had. Basically people were saying, "Yeah,
it's good to consolidate and we're glad to see you're consolidating,
but aren't there a few more things that legislation can contribute
to in terms of the path towards equality?" Therefore, there
are a number of areas where people have made particular representations,
and I would say those are to do with equal pay and the frustration
that 40 years after the equal pay gap we are not making enough
progress on narrowing the equal pay gap and what contribution
could legislation make. Secondly, that if there is a public commitment
to equality, are we mobilising procurement sufficiently to help
us deliver on that objective, and might there be a legislative
contribution in terms of public procurement. That is an issue
which has been raised. The other has been the question of transparency
on pay as to how, at your own workplace or through your trade
union, you can combat pay inequality if you cannot see it. There
have been a lot of proposals into us about transparency and pay
inequality between men and women. There are other areas which
have been put forward, but I would say those are the main ones
on gender.
Q211 Chairman: Are they ones you
are expecting to make movement on?
Ms Harman: They are the ones where
representations have been made and, as you will know, there are
a number of different government departments involved in that
and there might be discussions about that going on. I do not want
to be cryptic, but I have not got policy agreement which I can
put forward to you, otherwise I would.
Q212 Chairman: We can say that you
have indicated these are areas which are being looked at very
seriously?
Ms Harman: If you have got a consultation
and the response to the consultation tells you that you could
do more than what you were planning to do, the whole point about
consultation is to recognise that, and if you see there is a general
will to do something and there are good arguments for doing it,
you should. That is what has led people to think, is it a bad
thing that we are not having a draft Bill, does that represent
a weakening of our commitment to equality? Actually, it represents
a potential commitment to strengthening it because if we were
going to change the policy, we would not be able to draft the
Bill in time to have it ready and drafted by February.
Q213 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: You will
be aware that the GLA and the ODA have in place some particularly
novel contractual requirements with regard to women. These contractual
requirements do not only relate to the pay issues around the employment
of women but also provide women with an opportunity, in fact,
to participate in training programmes, skill development programmes
and, also, to procure work. What opportunity do you think there
is or what ambition do you have with regard to public departments,
with specific reference to the large spending departments, reflecting
the good practices that the ODA have in their contracts and their
procurement?
Ms Harman: They have made a very
good step forward on that and, as you will know, the Treasury,
I think it was, motivated the establishment of the National Employment
Panel's Business Commission on Race Equality in the Workplace.
They are looking at the role of public procurement in relation
to equality in relation to ethnicity, but when they come forward
with their findings there is no reason why there should not be
a read-across from the proposals they put forward in relation
to ethnicity to gender as well.[1]
People do find it hard to understand when there is so much power
by way of spending, in getting goods and services, that it is
not mobilised to the public policy objective. I think that is
very important indeed, and I await the National Employment Panel's
work which is going to be very important when it comes out. Looking
at what has already been done by the ODA and the GLA, I think
we have got progress to make on procurement.
Q214 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: I would have
liked a bit more of an assertive response to that which tried
to embrace different government departments because the Government
is the biggest procurer in the UK today. My experience of procurement,
particularly in areas which are male orientated, so where you
have very little presence of women, is that there is spectacularly
no reference to the inclusion of women or consideration of women
within those contracts. The discussions we have had with the ODA
have said, "Yes, these requirements are within our contracts
but currently they are not weighted when that contract is considered".
The duty is there but compliance with the duty is not weighted
when it comes to awarding a contract. Half a step forward is better
than no step at all, and that is great, but, in fact, with government
departments we have not even made half a step forward. That is
an explicit requirement to ensure that you have an equal opportunities
policy with regard to women, and there is tangible evidence there,
is there not, but there is not a duty to recruit women, or people
from ethnically diverse backgrounds, explicitly listed within
the contract. I would rather hope that as Minister for Women you
would be saying to our colleagues across government departments,
"I would like to see this put in as a minimum because it
is only a half-way step", because once we have made that
step we then have to make that a consideration when awarding contracts.
Is that something you have possibly considered? If it is not something
you have considered this far, is it something you might be persuaded
to consider and what sort of evidence do you need in order to
do that?
Ms Harman: Obviously if you do
want to make progress you have to use all the levers which are
there at your disposal. This is a huge lever which has almost
been outside the limits of what it is expected Government ought
to be thinking about, that you look not just at the competence
of somebody to perform the contract, you look not just at the
cost in terms of the price of the contract but you look also at
how you can achieve other Government objectives at the same time.
This is very much an issue under consideration. Then the question
will be, how is this carried out just by action short of legislation
and what sort of role would legislation have to play in it? Obviously
there are things which can be done without legislation in the
public sector if they are not prohibited, but then there are some
things which perhaps are prohibited that might need to be made
lawful.
Q215 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Minister,
you will be aware that the Mayor's Bill had within it a specific
clause which mandated the Mayor to execute an agenda equality
programme. It is actually within that Bill, which is why he has
been able to deliver gender equality in his activities. Therefore,
I would suggest it has, in fact, provided the outcome which we
would all seek and maybe without legislation we will not make
a lot of progress with respect to government departments.
Ms Harman: Sometimes something
is expressly prohibited and, therefore, you need legislation to
remove the prohibition. Sometimes the law is not clear and, therefore,
people who do not want to do anything say it is not okay and you
sometimes need a legal change to clarify the situation. Sometimes
law is not needed, it is just that people are not doing it. There
are three positions on that. Whether or not the Mayor could have
done it without that legislative encouragement is an open question.
Obviously it makes it clearer that he should, but possibly he
could have done it without it anyway.
Q216 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Presumably
we would be doing it as well under that basis but, of course,
we are not and he is.
Ms Harman: We are not at the moment.
Q217 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Perhaps we
need that sort of incentive then.
Ms Harman: I do not think anybody
should ever take risks and act outside the law, but sometimes
if there is even any possibility at all that something might be
subject to legal challenge, however unmeritorious the legal challenge,
the sense that, therefore, you fall back in front of it and you
cannot therefore do something, there are two ways of dealing with
that. One is just going on ahead with it and saying, "See
you in court because we think we're right and you're wrong",
and the other is to change the law to clarify it.
Q218 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Yes, but
companies will say, "If you don't legislate, we're not required
to do it, and if we do it and our competitors don't, that makes
us relatively uncompetitive in comparison with them", and
that is why it has not been done.
Ms Harman: If we are talking about
the public sector, the public sector does not—
Q219 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: We are talking
about procurement.
Ms Harman: Yes, but it is about
the public sector procuring—
Mrs Curtis-Thomas: From the private sector,
exactly, and they will say, "If you don't legislate we won't
do it because we lose out relative to our competition", and
that is why they do not do it. Thank you.
1 Footnote by Witness: NB. The report was published
in October 2007. Back
|
