Workplace Pay Gaps

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

May I take this opportunity to wish all colleagues present a happy new year?

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pay gaps in the workplace.

Thank you, Sir Roger. I wish everybody a happy new year, too, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

There are multiple pay gaps in the workplace. I have had emails about the age pay gap, size pay gap and accent pay gaps—as a certified cockney, I know that that is true, and just for the record, some of the most intelligent people I know are cockneys. But today, for Ethnicity Pay Gap Day, I want to focus on gender, ethnicity and disability pay gaps. The key point is that if we measure something, we can fix it, but at the current rate, it will take another 40 years to fix the gender and ethnicity pay gap. Nobody should feel happy about that slow rate of progress; and imagine how long it will take to fix the disability pay gap—it will take even longer.

Last year, the Fawcett Society reported that Equal Pay Day fell on 20 November, two days earlier than the year before, and that essentially meant that from 20 November until the end of the year women were working for free. It is shocking that, on average, women earn £630 less a month than their male counterparts. On social media, people sometimes say, “What is this all about? Are you trying to reduce how much men are paid?” That is not what this is about. It is about fairness and equality and about paying people more, not less. I do not want on social media the manipulation and the misinformation of people saying, when we talk about equal rights and fairness, that that is somehow doing down men, because it absolutely is not. Currently, the ethnicity pay gap is 5.6% and the disability pay gap is 12.7%. That is a whopping pay gap.

The Government are to be applauded for their ambition and plan to make work pay. The Prime Minister said, as part of his new year message:

“The security of working people…is the purpose of this government.”

That is something that we should all applaud: working people should be secure in their job and in their work. Following the King’s Speech, companies of 250-plus employees have to report ethnicity and disability pay gaps, which is welcome. It is also welcome that gender pay gap reporting has been expanded to include equality action plans. That is great, but producing equality action plans is not enough. What will companies do with the action plans? How will they ensure that they use the action plans to close the pay gaps? It is one step, but it does not go far enough.

It has to be acknowledged that what we do now will actually make the workplace better for everybody—not just women, people with disabilities and people of different ethnicities. Everybody will benefit if the workplace is fairer. Research has found that men want flexibility in the workplace. This is always framed as women wanting flexibility in the workplace, but the reality is that men also want flexibility, so if we make that a standard, everybody will be happy. And no matter who is doing the job, doing the work, they should be paid fairly. That should be the case no matter who they are or what they look like, so there also needs to be a concerted effort whereby we stop stereotyping people into jobs or creating structures that try to normalise inequality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. It appears that at least seven Members wish to take part in the debate, apart from the Front Benchers, who each have 10 minutes. On that basis, I am going to put an immediate seven-minute time limit on speeches. I may have to reduce that, which will depend on whether Members choose to intervene. If they do, that will shorten the time available for debate. If Members do intervene, I gently ask that they make interventions and not speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. To make it easier for Members, I have asked that the clock count down, rather than up, so it is easier to work out how much time you have left. You can now see that very clearly indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing this important issue to the fore. As a declaration of interest, I am a proud member of Unite the union and the Community union.

At the heart of this debate is the ongoing problem of inequality and, ultimately, who actually holds the power in our country, which has been the consistent issue that workers have faced for centuries. The truth is that our country and our economy has always been run for the benefit of the few—historically, those who owned the land and its resources, and the people who worked on it. Whoever controls that will have wealth; therefore, inequality is not a new phenomenon. If I may be permitted a little more history, the creation of the Labour party in 1900 meant that at last the working class and the trade union movement had an effective voice in Parliament. But for women, it took until 1928, when the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 was passed, to deliver them equal voting rights with men. However, pay discrimination for women is still an issue.

To focus specifically on Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, using the Office for National Statistics annual survey of hours and earnings, has shown that women in Scotland can expect to earn an incredible £3,000 a year less than men. That gender pay gap rose from 6.4% in 2023 to 8.3% in 2024, up by 30%. While the typical Scottish male has seen their hourly pay increase by £1, a Scottish female has seen it increase in comparison by 74p: yet more inequality built into our society.

That is sadly reflected when we look at local government workers in Scotland, approximately three quarters of whom are female. Local authority workers need and deserve a wage that genuinely reflects their worth and value to society. After 17 years of the SNP’s own brand of austerity, the Scottish Government must now invest in workers and the public services that people so drastically rely on.

An article published yesterday described how a FTSE 100 boss’s hourly pay has now hit £1,298. That shows the gross inequality and unfairness that exists in workplaces. The huge disparity between pay for those at the very top of industry and their staff—those who generate that wealth—has grown bigger. We cannot look at pay inequality in isolation because, in the ongoing fight for a fairer society, multiple issues must be linked. In Britain today, as well as pay inequality, millions of people are in the grip of food poverty, living in substandard housing, in a society where, overall, many are victims of tax injustice. We are still a country where wealth and power continues to be concentrated in the hands of corporations and not ordinary working people.

The truth is that the cost of living crisis has not gone away, but it is not a crisis for the banks, supermarkets, utility companies or individual oligarchs who have seen their wealth explode. Austerity and the cost of living crisis have been crises for the poorest, most vulnerable, the most disadvantaged and the working class. Thankfully, over the last two years the British Labour movement has led the fight against insatiable corporate greed and avarice. The collective power of trade unions as an effective fighting force for workers’ rights has thankfully been re-established. The fight for equality in the workplace and across society, just like the cost of living crisis, goes on.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

We now come, slightly earlier than anticipated, to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. This is entirely my fault. I imposed a time limit on speeches earlier, but two Members then dropped out, which has left us, perversely, slightly under-running. I should have indicated to the Front Benchers at the start of the Front-Bench contributions that we had a little more time than we might need. It is probably in the interests of the House that we hear what the Minister has to say, so I am going to allow the Minister to run over very slightly; if she wishes to take the intervention, she may do so.

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will give way.