Equality Act leaves some feeling short-changed

The Equality Act 2010 was one of Harriet Harman’s proudest achievements and fulfilled a Labour Party 2005 manifesto commitment. It brings together nine different laws, including the Equal Pay Act, simplifying the legislation and making it easier and less bureaucratic for businesses. And it comes into force tomorrow (1 October).

Indeed, the Home Office is making a virtue of the fact that the Act is coming into effect on this date, the same day as the release of Made in Dagenham, the film about women at the Ford plant fighting for equal pay (it led to the Equal Pay Act becoming law).

But today the Fawcett Society is accusing the Coalition Government of undermining the 2010 Act by leaving out what they describe as key sections. Ten per cent of the provisons have been left out, including what the feminist organisation describes as ‘the real teeth of the Act’ , which was the gender pay audit. This remains, according to the Home Office website in the ‘provisions the Government is still considering’. http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx

This would have given the Government the power to require large private sector companies with over 250 employees to establish whether they have a pay gap between men and women and publish their findings.

Remaining in the legislation will be the banning of gagging clauses that stop people discussing their pay with their colleagues along with a number of anti-discrimination provisions.

The Fawcett Society said in a statement today: “Forty years after the Dagenham machinists first striked for equal pay, women working in Dagenham earn an average 30 per cent less than men and nationally the pay gap between the average man and woman’s pay is a staggering 16.4 per cent.”

There are also concerns that that there are now no plans by the Government to enforce the dual discrimination legislation which would have allowed, for instance a black woman, to bring just one claim; and they appear to also be scrapping the positive action clause. This would have meant that if two people of the same ability applied for the same job, the company could choose the person on the grounds that it would redress an imbalance or underrepresenation of certain people.

Provisions the Government is still considering
The socio-economic duty on public bodies 
Dual discrimination 
Duty to make reasonable adjustments to common parts of leasehold and commonhold premises and common parts in Scotland 
Gender pay gap information 
Provisions relating to auxiliary aids in schools 
Diversity reporting by political parties 
Positive action in recruitment and promotion 
Provisions about taxi accessibility 
Prohibition on age discrimination in services and public functions 
Family property 
Civil partnerships on religious premises