Q
124Sandra
Osborne: Will you expand a bit on the idea of
representative actions? What benefits could that bring, for example, to
the recent single-status negotiations of local authorities? Many women
found it difficult, especially if they were not represented by their
trade union. Would such action have helped in that situation, for
example? Katherine
Rake: Yes, certainly. It allows two things. First,
other organisations might take a case on behalf of the women if they
were not able to take a case themselves. It also allows women to stand
together much more effectively so that if the matter was not unionised,
a group of women could come together and either represent themselves or
be represented by an external body. If such a provision were included,
it could be incredibly
powerful. Joyce
Gould: As I understand it, some work has already been
looked at to see whether representative action could now be built in
for some low-level cases. That would be very
helpful.
Q
125Lynne
Featherstone: Not long ago, Nicola Brewer of the Equality
and Human Rights Commission said that employers were rejecting women
and not even inviting them to interviews because of maternity benefits.
It is a sort of discrimination before people even get to work. For all
the reasons that we have just discussed about women having a hard time
in work, they are having a hard time getting into work. Do you think
that there is any room in the Bill for measures that would reduce
pre-work
barriers? Katherine
Rake: One of the things in the Bill that we are
concerned about is the fact that it is a step back in pregnancy
discrimination. Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, there is simply
a provision to ensure that pregnant women are not treated less
favourably than anyone else, but according to the Bill there is a
reference to being treated less favourably than is reasonable. We are
strongly advocating that the “than is reasonable”
provision be removed because it is in contravention of European
Community directives and the Sex Discrimination Act. We hope that that
is a drafting error, rather than a deliberate
act. More
needs to be done to provide some basic leadership on the issue, so we
have written in association with a number of colleagues across the
voluntary sector to ask
Peter Mandelson to remind employers at this time that it is illegal, and
has been for many years, to discriminate against a woman because she is
pregnant or likely to become pregnant. Employers need to be reminded in
difficult times that they have to abide by basic employment law, so
there is some leadership, along with that
provision. If
that “reasonable” clause is removed, we will have some
strong legislative protection against pregnancy and maternity-related
discrimination. The problem is a cultural one really, which is where
Government leadership is so critical in reminding people of the loss of
skills and the loss to the economy that would happen if we did not
offer pregnant women and those on maternity leave proper
protection. Clearly,
you cannot dissociate women’s rights in employment from
mothers’ rights in employment—most women at some point
become mothers. Even those who do not become mothers tend to be grouped
in the same
bracket—
Lynne
Featherstone: It is discrimination against young
women. Katherine
Rake: Exactly. It is basically discrimination against
women, so it is important that the Government send a strong signal,
both that they will remove the reasonableness test that appears to have
crept in and that they will not, culturally, tolerate that sort of
discrimination, even in difficult times.
Joyce
Gould: Briefly, the Women’s National
Commission has also discussed the question particularly about
pregnancy—people not being employed because they are pregnant or
might be pregnant, which is quite intolerable and not to be accepted. I
am delighted that people are writing to the Minister to say that it is
not something that should
happen. On
the question of the “reasonable” clause, the
Women’s National Commission held a roundtable—last week,
I think—when the issue was raised. Obviously, we shall be asking
the Government to look again at
“reasonable”. Emma
Stewart: I add more positive messages to highlight
the loss to business of an untapped talent pool that otherwise could be
utilised and contribute hugely to the economy. That is clearly
something for positive measures and initiatives outside the Bill that
we would
endorse.
The
Chairman: No other questions? I am so pleased that I have
not had to cut anyone off in their
prime. Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned. —(Barbara
Keeley.) 5.56
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 9 June at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
