John
Penrose: Will the hon. and learned Lady give
way?
The
Solicitor-General: Not right now. Many companies are
already undertaking pay audits voluntarily. How does that square with
the prohibitive costs agreement?
If it were as dear as the hon. Gentleman says, they
would be mad to do even the small publication that we require in clause
73. People do pay audits systematically throughout their businesses
because, unlike the Tories, they know that paying women fairly is good
for their business and helps them to attract talented
women.
Mr.
Harper: If, as the Minister says, companies are acting in
that way already and recognise that such measures are good for
business—a point that we have made today and my right hon.
Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made on Second
Reading—why does she believe that the provision is necessary?
The fact that she is making it voluntary for the first four years
suggests that she thinks—if not she, then other members of the
Government—that there is a case about its burdensome and costly
nature, which is why it is not being brought in immediately and she
wants to leave it to see whether businesses can be persuaded to do it
by the case that she is putting.
The
Solicitor-General: First, there is a big difference
between those who take such action and the rest who do not, and that
requires legislation. Secondly, we are not leaving it to lie because of
burdens. We are seeking a consensus so that such action will be taken
voluntarily and more quickly than if we suddenly slammed gender pay
audits on the whole of business. Let me make it clear: it speaks
volumes when the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare does not know the
difference between a gender pay audit and the provision, and suggests
that businesses thought that there would not be gender pay audits one
week, while there would be the next week. That shows that the
Opposition do not have a clue. They are not in this field in any way.
The requirements are yet to be fixed, and they do not resemble a gender
pay
audit. The
only gender pay audit that has ever been proposed in this Parliament is
the one that the Conservatives suggested in the Bill of Baroness Morris
of Bolton, which was dissected mercilessly in the Lords and shown to be
a complete farce not by a member of the Labour party, but by Lord
Lester of the Liberal Democrat party. The provision does not require
equal pay audits. The hon. Gentleman thought that it supported a
dreadful disclosure. Unfortunately, he does not understand the
difference between such
provisions. We
have been clear that we expect that business will—as it says it
will, contrary to what the Tories are suggesting—start reporting
all the more not only when the CBI helps them to do so, but when they
recognise that unwittingly they pay unequal pay. As for implementation
costs, businesses of 250-plus employees already collect all the
information that we require. They will have the necessary IT in place;
the costs will be limited to presenting the information in an
accessible format and publishing it, for example, on websites. Part of
the job that will be done by the teams set up under the EHRC will be to
identify exactly a system that is achievable within acceptable cost
parameters for
business. Should
the clause stand part of the Bill, it will push forward the cause of
women’s equal pay immeasurably. If the Tories vote against it,
that will speak volumes to the public.
John
Penrose: I obviously need to say whether we will press new
clause 9 to a Division. I want also to respond to one or two points
made by the Solicitor-General,
given that she was not taking interventions—from me, at least.
The Minister asserted strongly that the Government know and have deeply
researched the costs per company for producing the pay reports—I
am calling them that to avoid upsetting her again—and she has
backed that up with the Government’s impact assessment. It was
revealing that she then said that there will be an extensive
consultation with business to work out how it can be done, and what
parameters can be reported and how in a low-cost way. I am not sure
that she can have it both ways—to have an impact assessment that
is done and dusted and very solid, yet saying the Government will
consult on the best way to do it and minimise the cost that way.
Clearly, there is a difference. [Interruption.] If
the Minister would like to make an intervention, I am happy to take
it.
The
Solicitor-General: It is a very simple point. We have a
fixed point now that we think will be the cost. If we can negotiate it
even lower by involving business, of course we will. Is that difficult
to
follow?
John
Penrose: It is delightfully easy to follow. It is,
however, rather hard to believe. But I understand that the Minister
feels very strongly about it. It is noticeable that she is getting
rather upset by the fact that I do not agree with her, but perhaps we
can maintain a degree of equilibrium and accept that reasonable people
can agree to disagree on the matter. Reality will prove which one of us
is right in the future.
On new clause
9, I was struck by the fact that the Minister relied heavily, and
fairly, I thought, on saying that a great deal of work can be done to
improve the disability pay gap by reasonable adjustments and positive
action. I was struck, though, that that argument does not seem to have
the same degree of salience in her mind for the gender pay gap.
However, given where we are, the importance of making some progress and
the fact that we have thrashed the issue very seriously, I will happily
not press the new clause to a Division and come back to it
later.
Question
put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes
4.
Division
No.
4] Foster,
Michael Jabez (Hastings and
Rye)Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 73,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
74 and 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
7 agreed to.
Clause
76Ships
and
hovercraft Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Sandra
Osborne: I want to ask the Minister a brief question. I
hope that it is on the clause—no doubt you will be quick to tell
me if it is not, Lady Winterton. Albeit that I have a long coastline in
my constituency, I do not know much about seafarers. As I understand
it, for some time the Government have been promising to reform the
seafarers’ exemption from the Race Relations Act 1976 and to
change that outdated discriminatory legislation. However, I understand
that the Bill does not contain specific proposals to reform the
existing seafarers discrimination, but that enabling legislation will
allow reform in secondary legislation. Clearly, the seafarers and the
trade union wish the Government to commit to full and effective reform
of that discrimination legislation as a matter of urgency. I hope that
the Minister can respond to my
points. 5.15
pm
The
Solicitor-General: I shall try; I can give a partial
explanation and then write with the rest. My hon. Friend will have that
before Report, in case she wants to seek any changes
then. Section
9 of the Race Relations Act 1976 allows for differentiations in pay on
the grounds of nationality. The Bill does not retain that provision for
seafarers recruited outside Great Britain and in line with global
shipping practice. The details of the regulations have not yet been
settled, but we anticipate that the regulations applying the employment
provisions to seafarers will allow employers to continue to operate pay
rates that distinguish on the grounds of nationality between seafarers
recruited outside Great Britain, other than those from the European
economic area and relevant associated states. If there is more to it
than that, I shall write to my hon. Friend. However, it is quite
clear—I am afraid—that pay differentials will remain
between those recruited from affluent Europe and those from other areas
of
world. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
77Offshore
work
John
Penrose: I beg to move amendment 240, in
clause 77, page 58, line 4, leave
out ‘with
or’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 241, in
clause 77, page 58, line 6, leave
out ‘with
or’.
John
Penrose: I hope that the amendments are entirely technical
ones. I am relying on the Minister’s expert legal brain to solve
the problem about which we are worried. As the notes explain, clause
77
“contains
a power to make an Order in Council in relation to work on board
offshore installations. The power may be used to apply Part 5 (with or
without modification) to those working on such
installations.”
The
amendments would trim that power, so that it can no longer be used to
apply part 5, with or without modification, but just without
modification. Are the Government wedded to allowing part 5 to be
applied with or without modifications? If so, will any legal limits be
set to the extent of the modifications that can be proposed? I am sure
that we are all happy to accept an assertion of the Minister’s
good character and intentions, and so forth, and no doubt she would
apply the provision responsibly, but it is important to bind future
Ministers and to ensure that they do not have untrammelled powers that
are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is an entirely technical
point on which I hope that she can reassure
us.
The
Solicitor-General: I am pleased to be able to make this
clear. As the hon. Gentleman said, leaving out “with or”
would, in effect, exclude the power to make modifications to the
provisions. However, the power is a limited one that allows the
provisions of part 5 to be modified in their application to
offshore work, but it does not allow any limitation of the substance of
the protections in the Bill. How the protections apply may be modified.
If we accepted the amendments, we could only use the
order-making power in clause 77 to apply part 5 and the corresponding
Northern Ireland legislation to offshore work without
modifications.
Modifications
of the law, when applied by means of secondary legislation, are not
new; it is simply a prudent approach to drafting. I could give several
examples. For instance, section 201 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
enables the application of that Act “with or without
modification”. So we are not doing anything novel. It is
important in a consolidation exercise to ensure that we have sufficient
flexibility, especially in relation to offshore work, to adapt the
legislation to the technical and practical realities of the
offshore environment. We do not have any modification in mind at
present, but we might at some point find it necessary to adapt the
terminology in part 5 to ensure that it translates appropriately to
particular circumstances—for example, those of workers who spend
part of their time on ships and part on rigs.
Such an
approach will facilitate a clearer and more accurate application of the
provisions of part 5 in what is characteristically a very fluid area of
employment, thus enabling the modifications that might be necessary to
ensure that the law works in the various situations to which it will be
applied. Probably the important point is that this is about the
modification of the application to offshore work, but it does
not allow any limitation of the substance of the protections
contained in the Bill. That is probably the point about which the hon.
Gentleman sought assurance, and I am pleased to be able to give
it.
John
Penrose: That is an admirably clear and concise response,
and I am sure that everyone accepts the need to make modifications for
the particular situations on board ships or rigs. Based on the
Minister’s reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
78Interpretation
and
exceptions
Lynne
Featherstone: I beg to move amendment 243, in
clause 78, page 58, line 45, at
end insert— ‘(e)
unremunerated work that is comparable to
employment.’. A
probing amendment to establish to what extent volunteers have the same
protection from discrimination as
employees.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause
19— Volunteers— ‘For
the avoidance of doubt, with the exclusion of matters related to
remuneration, all rights of employees under this Act are deemed to
extend to persons who work as volunteers without remuneration; and all
duties of employees and their employers to avoid discrimination are
deemed to extend to volunteers working without
remuneration.’.
| 
