Clause 59
Equality Bill
10:45 am
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)
This debate is about hypothetical comparators. The amendments would allow people to make a claim for equal pay when there is no real comparator. The argument is quite well-trodden—if one Googles “hypothetical comparator” on the parliamentary website, one can see that the discussion goes back through many forms of Committees over many years. This time round, I hope that we will make a change.
Traditionally, women who suffer unequal pay are at a significant disadvantage to other forms of discrimination, such as race and disability. It is the only type of discrimination regarding pay differentials where there is a particular requirement to propose a real comparator—to point to someone else to compare with, in the work that one is undertaking. That has proven—the TUC, the Fawcett Society and the Women’s National Commission agree—to be a significant obstacle where such a comparator does not exist. That happens when there is a majority female work force.
Professions dominated by females are often underpaid—cleaners, hairdressers, dinner ladies and many other female occupations. They often have a lower ratio of pay. Because there are virtually no men doing comparable jobs in comparable places, it becomes impossible to argue that the work is undervalued, because we cannot point to a real comparator.
For reasons of history and female economic inequality through almost every strata, women’s work is always given a lower price tag, even when men are doing equivalent tasks that require equivalent skills to those of a female-orientated job. The requirement is not imposed on other types of discrimination. For example, if someone is trying to prove race discrimination, they are not barred from claiming discrimination if they cannot find a real comparator. It is a discrimination within discriminations.
The Women’s National Commission, in its evidence, said that it is very much in favour of hypothetical comparators, and would like to see, as we would on the Liberal Democrat Benches—I suspect on many other Benches as well—the barrier removed from equal pay claims. The Fawcett Society said that that would make a huge difference. Will the Minister explain why there has been resistance to removing that barrier to equal pay, which has set women back so profoundly? I do not understand the rationale behind it, so I would welcome her response.