The Liberal Democrats’ latest U-turn: equal pay

Theresa May to scrap compulsory gender pay audits, which Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to impl

Liberal Democrat MPs are increasingly well-practised at eating their words. The latest reversal is over equal pay audits.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, will announce later today that plans to force companies to disclose how much they pay men and women are to be scrapped. Instead, companies will be asked to narrow the pay gap – one of the worst in Europe – through voluntary efforts.

It comes as no surprise that a Conservative-led government has opted to scrap this clause in the Equality Act – it is unpopular with big business. But it does fly in the face of a Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge to introduce fair pay audits for every company with more than 100 employees. This went further than Labour's draft legislation, which limited the measure to companies with more than 250 employees.

It will also be a humiliating climbdown for the Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone, junior minister for equality, who said in June 2008 that the legislation did not go far enough:

A voluntary audit system for private industry is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. We need to know when the government actually plans to step in if progress isn't made.

The government's failure to grasp the nettle of private-sector pay will provide little comfort to the enormous numbers of people who are still being discriminated against in the workplace.

Featherstone has not issued a statement in the response to the new move.

Not only is this an about-turn for the Lib Dems, it is a huge step backwards in the fight to equalise pay. Women in the UK earn, on average, 21.4 per cent less than men. A recent study estimated that, at the current rate of change, pay would not be equalised until 2067. It is clear that we need to take positive action to speed this process along.

Gender equality groups such as the Fawcett Society have consistently pointed to the UK's culture of secrecy around pay as one of the reasons that the gap persists. In Sweden, when transparency measures were introduced, the gender pay gap has narrowed greatly.

Speaking to the Financial Times this year, Harriet Harman explained the thinking behind the compulsory audit:

It is all too easy for people to say there is unfairness in pay but not here, and it is very important – knowledge is power – for people to see the pay gap in their workplace.

Though the voluntary measures that will replace gender pay audits have not yet been spelled out, it is probably safe to assume that the bite has been taken out of the act altogether.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Garry Knight via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Why Barack Obama was right to release Chelsea Manning

A Presidential act of mercy is good for Manning, but also for the US.

In early 2010, a young US military intelligence analyst on an army base near Baghdad slipped a Lady Gaga CD into a computer and sang along to the music. In fact, the soldier's apparently upbeat mood hid two facts. 

First, the soldier later known as Chelsea Manning was completely alienated from army culture, and the callous way she believed it treated civilians in Iraq. And second, she was quietly erasing the music on her CDs and replacing it with files holding explosive military data, which she would release to the world via Wikileaks. 

To some, Manning is a free speech hero. To others, she is a traitor. President Barack Obama’s decision to commute her 35-year sentence before leaving office has been blasted as “outrageous” by leading Republican Paul Ryan. Other Republican critics argue Obama is rewarding an act that endangered the lives of soldiers and intelligence operatives while giving ammunition to Russia. 

They have a point. Liberals banging the drum against Russia’s leak offensive during the US election cannot simultaneously argue leaks are inherently good. 

But even if you think Manning was deeply misguided in her use of Lady Gaga CDs, there are strong reasons why we should celebrate her release. 

1. She was not judged on the public interest

Manning was motivated by what she believed to be human rights abuses in Iraq, but her public interest defence has never been tested. 

The leaks were undoubtedly of public interest. As Manning said in the podcast she recorded with Amnesty International: “When we made mistakes, planning operations, innocent people died.” 

Thanks to Manning’s leak, we also know about the Vatican hiding sex abuse scandals in Ireland, plus the UK promising to protect US interests during the Chilcot Inquiry. 

In countries such as Germany, Canada and Denmark, whistle blowers in sensitive areas can use a public interest defence. In the US, however, such a defence does not exist – meaning it is impossible for Manning to legally argue her actions were in the public good. 

2. She was deemed worse than rapists and murderers

Her sentence was out of proportion to her crime. Compare her 35-year sentence to that received by William Millay, a young police officer, also in 2013. Caught in the act of trying to sell classified documents to someone he believed was a Russian intelligence officer, he was given 16 years

According to Amnesty International: “Manning’s sentence was much longer than other members of the military convicted of charges such as murder, rape and war crimes, as well as any others who were convicted of leaking classified materials to the public.”

3. Her time in jail was particularly miserable 

Manning’s conditions in jail do nothing to dispel the idea she has been treated extraordinarily harshly. When initially placed in solitary confinement, she needed permission to do anything in her cell, even walking around to exercise. 

When she requested treatment for her gender dysphoria, the military prison’s initial response was a blanket refusal – despite the fact many civilian prisons accept the idea that trans inmates are entitled to hormones. Manning has attempted suicide several times. She finally received permission to receive gender transition surgery in 2016 after a hunger strike

4. Julian Assange can stop acting like a martyr

Internationally, Manning’s continued incarceration was likely to do more harm than good. She has said she is sorry “for hurting the US”. Her worldwide following has turned her into an icon of US hypocrisy on free speech.

Then there's the fact Wikileaks said its founder Julian Assange would agree to be extradited to the US if Manning was released. Now that Manning is months away from freedom, his excuses for staying in the Equadorian London Embassy to avoid Swedish rape allegations are somewhat feebler.  

As for the President - under whose watch Manning was prosecuted - he may be leaving his office with his legacy in peril, but with one stroke of his pen, he has changed a life. Manning, now 29, could have expected to leave prison in her late 50s. Instead, she'll be free before her 30th birthday. And perhaps the Equadorian ambassador will finally get his room back. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.