Gender pay gap data transparency has been a long time coming. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Is David Cameron serious about closing the gender pay gap?

The Prime Minister is re-announcing pay transparency measures formulated by the coalition – is it just a gesture?

David Cameron is warning big firms to have a better approach to their female employees – with a policy he nicked from a former female colleague. Kind of.

He plans to force companies with 250 employees or more to publish the pay gap between their male and female employees. Pay transparency to challenge the gender pay gap is a measure the Lib Dems were pushing through in the dwindling days of the coalition, championed by then Women & Equalities and Business Minister Jo Swinson.

The pay gap in the UK for all employees (full-time and part-time) is currently 19 per cent, measured by median gross hourly pay. You will also come across the assertion that the gender pay gap is 9.4 per cent, but this doesn’t count part-time workers (more of whom are women).

The government is always keen to point out that the gender pay gap is at its “lowest on record”, but it has shifted very little in the past five years, and actually widened in 2012-13 for the first time since 2008.

One former minister of the last government is scathing about the government championing its record on the subject: “yes the gender pay gap’s coming down,” they tell me. “But I think there can be a bit of a sense of complacency when we say it’s at its lowest ever – well yes, fine, that’s good, but there being a gender pay gap, let alone one that’s 19 per cent, is not acceptable.”

So is the Prime Minister really serious about tackling unequal pay?

Here’s his explanation of his policy – formulated at the end of the coalition and promised in the Tory manifesto – in an article in today’s Times:

We have already introduced equal pay audits for those companies that have lost employment tribunals. But today I’m announcing a really big move: we will make every single company with 250 employees or more publish the gap between average female earnings and average male earnings. That will cast sunlight on the discrepancies and create the pressure we need for change, driving women’s wages up.

The pledge from the Tory manifesto:

We want to see full, genuine gender equality. The gender pay gap is the lowest on record, but we want to reduce it further and will push business to do so: we will require companies with more than 250 employees to publish the difference between the average pay of their male and female employees.

And here’s Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010, which refers to equal pay but has never been enacted in a way that has forced companies to fix their pay gaps:

(Click to enlarge).

Swinson, who held the Business and the Women & Equalities brief in 2012-15, was at the forefront of persuading her Conservative colleagues to take the issue seriously.

“My first thought was ‘this looks familiar’!” is how the former MP reacted to Cameron’s re-announcement of the policy she and her colleagues managed to push through in March.

“It was very frustrating in government when, for the best part of five years, the Conservatives were opposed to taking these steps on the gender pay gap,” she reveals. “But nonetheless it’s always positive to see the Prime Minister and senior politicians recognising the importance of this, not just for fairness of women, but for our economy more widely.”

She decries the Conservatives’ “obsession that the voluntary approach was going to solve it . . . Back when the equality strategy was being negotiated at the beginning of the coalition, this was one of the issues that Nick Clegg and Theresa May were negotiating on, and we were pushing for our policy on pay transparency to be implemented, and in the end, the best we could achieve was that we would try the voluntary approach and if that didn’t deliver, it would be reviewed.”

Giving companies the option of voluntarily disclosing their gender pay gaps didn’t work; only five firms ended up publishing the information.

Although Swinson is in favour of Cameron’s move to make it compulsory, she stresses that the policy alone will not solve the problem. “It has to be looked at as part of a wider set of measures; this measure on its own is very, very valuable but it’s not a silver bullet, and there is no silver bullet, because the pay gap is very complex,” she says.

Swinson praises the current Equalities Minister, and Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan for being "passionate" about the subject, but also warns that "there are definitely voices within the Conservative party who don’t see this as a business issue, who don’t see this as something that is holding back the UK economy, and think that it is something of a distraction. You can only hope that over time those voices will diminish."

There is a distinct lack of detail about how the policy will work, because it is under consultation. A government spokesperson tells me:

A consultation, launched today, will look at the detail of how the new gender pay gap regulations will be designed, including what, where and when information will be published.

And the “what” here is crucial.

“The devil is really in the detail,” says Belinda Phipps, chair of the Fawcett Society, a women’s rights campaign group that has long been campaigning for equal pay. “It doesn’t actually say anything specific at all in the actual law."

She explains:

Those who have published a pay gap voluntarily have taken employed people – excludes the partners – and have taken their basic salary – and that excludes bonus and overtime, which we know already is different for men and women – and they’ve calculated the median for women and the median for men, which is an odd average to choose, and the compared the two. It doesn’t actually tell you very much at all and it’s very easy for you to game it.

Comparing medians leaves room for a company to use the employment of low-paid men, or the awarding of more bonus than salary to highly-paid men, to reduce how wide its gender pay gap appears.

The Fawcett Society and other campaigners are calling for tight regulation requiring companies to publish specific data – not simply the gap, but the maximum and minimum salaries for each type of job by gender, taking into account bonuses and overtime, and looking at gaps in terms of mode, mean and median. “That tells you a different story,” says Phipps.

Phipps is optimistic that the government will respond to pressure from campaigners for such tight regulation, but others are not so sure. Shirley Wright, a partner at the Eversheds law firm who has specialised in equal pay cases for over ten years, predicts that the government will shy away from forcing companies to publish the data in great detail.

“My gut feeling is it will lead to an overall figure rather than details,” says Wright, who has conducted a number of contested equal pay matters for public and private sector employers.

She adds:

They will I think keep the door open for employers to provide more detail than they have to . . . If I had to bet, I think businesses will be given the opportunity to do it, but I don’t think they’ll be forced to, I think the government will be alive to the potential burden on business . . . It could be quite time-consuming for particularly large employers to number-crunch and understand what the gender gap is at different levels, but it’s more meaningful if you do that.

Wright also suggests that if the government decides on fining companies who don't comply, it won't be a significant amount. “I don't think the penalty would be very high. And a low fine in itself won't achieve the objective. I have heard it said, definitely not amongst my clients, but I have heard it said that if it's only going to be a £5,000 fine, better doing that than incurring the time to produce the data that could result in litigation."

Other EU states are way ahead of the UK in terms of enforcing salary transparency. In some countries, like France, failure to comply with rules to regularly assess pay practices and pay differences and draw up an action plan for equal pay results in financial sanctions. And in Denmark, all companies with ten or more employees are required to conduct a gender audit to compare salaries of women and men and publish annual statistics, or they will potentially face a fine, or even criminal action.

Considering the Equal Pay Act was passed 45 years ago, and many fellow European countries have already legislated for gender pay gap transparency, it looks like Cameron’s announcement this week is the least he could do, and the longest he could have left the situation before intervening.

As Phipps concludes: “It’s hardly a cause for celebration because it is so long overdue.”

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

The view from Google Earth is magnificent - but there's a problem

Google Earth is spectacular - but it can give a misleading impression of the planet and the threats we face from climate change. 

 

Google Earth wants you to “get lost” in its updated interactive map. Collaborations with new media partners mean you can now climb Mount Everest, swim with sharks or visit Afghanistan with Zari the purple muppet. No, really:


Source: Google Earth

Yet as Trump slashes support for the science behind satellite imaging, is Google’s emphasis on spectacle leading us down the wrong path?

Google Earth's new look all starts well enough. Opening the new site on your browser takes you to an image of a blue earth floating through the blackness of space. Back in the 1970s, similar images taken from the Apollo space missions helped kickstart the modern environmental movement. As the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle put it: “Once a photograph of the Earth, taken from the outside, is available, a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.”


Source: GETTY and Google Earth

And it gets better. Enter a destination in the search bar and you are greeted with the option to link directly out to the Wikipedia page: nerds of the world, rejoice! 

A guided tour from NASAearth is also on hand for anyone whose nerdery is in need of a prompt: “Geostationary satellites in geosynchronous orbits. Greenhouse gases and global warming. Glaciers... going, going, gone,” says the Bob Dylan-esque entry on its "ABCs from Space".

You can then choose to orbit your landmark of choice in 3D. And let’s face it - who doesn’t want to glide around the top of Mont Blanc, pretending to be an eagle? It’s almost as good as the BBC’s actual eagle-cam

But then it hits you. This is no soaring eagle, buffeted by wind currents and having to constantly adjust its flightpath in the face of real-world obstacles. This is a world surveyed at a safe and sanitising distance. Tourism for the Trump age – focused on providing “a consumption experience”. Certainly it is the opposite of “getting lost”.

In fact if anything has been lost or downplayed, it is the principles of scientific enquiry. The program is littered with human choices. Local versions of Google Maps, for instance, have shown different national borders depending on where in the world you log in. And while new, open-data imagery from America's Landsat 8 program is helping bring many regions up to date, other high-resolution imagery comes from commercial providers, such as Digital Globe. And as this Google 'help' page implies, there are issues of time-lag to face. 

You can’t even be sure what you’re looking at still exists. In 2015, Bolivia’s second largest lake vanished - a combination of climate change, El Nino, and irrigation withdrawal caused 2,700 square kilometres of water to evaporate into a dry salt pan. (It has not recovered, and seems unlikely to do so.) Yet on the new version of Google Earth the lake is still a healthy green:


Source: GoogleEarth

The much lauded film clips from the BBC’s Planet Earth II are similarly short on context. As I've argued before, David Attenborough's latest TV series did little to explain the stories behind the spectacle – there was no mention, for instance, of the arctic anthrax outbreak which caused thousands of reindeer to be culled, nor the role of climate change in worsening locust swarms. 

Finally, the new update actually shows you less of the world than it did before. Gone is the “Historical Imagery” tool that allowed you to see how a place had changed through time. Now, the Citadel of Aleppo in Syria is only visible as a bombed-out ruin. A surreal street-view reveals two women cheerily taking a selfie – with debris all around and their legs spliced out of shot:


Source: GoogleEarth

So why do these omissions matter? Because they take users further away from the evidence-based approach of earth science. It turns out that satellite images on their own are of limited use when it comes to quantifying change. Instead researchers must turn the raw pixels into numbers, which can then variously represent everything from forests to cities, glaciers and farms.

As Dr France Gerard at the UK’s Centre for Hydrology and Ecology explains, this process enables us to live in a better managed environment – be that by measuring air pollution or the impact of fertiliser on soil. The centre's landcover map, for instance, has been mapping British land use since 1990. Similar methods allow Sam Lavender’s company to provide Ugandans with a Drought and Flood Mitigation service, as part of the UK Space Agency’s International Partnership Programme.

Sadly, the need for public engagement has never been more urgent. Brexit and austerity have cast doubt over important projects in the UK. While in Donald Trump’s America, funds for earth monitoring are set to be slashed. Two missions already under the knife are PACE, a spacecraft set to track global ocean health, and CLARREO, which would have produced highly accurate climate records. Trump has also called for the earth-viewing instruments on the DSCOVR satellite to be turned off. Phil Larson, a former space advisor to President Obama, describes this decision as “baffling”.

So what can be done to reverse this trend? Experts I spoke to believe that collaboration is key. With government programs being squeezed, the earth monitoring industry may come to rely increasingly on the trend towards smaller, commercial satellites. These are great for increasing the quantity of data available but their accuracy needs to be constantly checked against the data from the larger and more reliable state-launched equipment.

There’s also still more data out there to share. As Bronwyn Agrios from Astro Digital points out, many countries have been gathering region-specific data – which could, in future, be made open source. “The neat thing about space is that there’s no border,” she concludes.

To help this process, Google Earth could do far more to raise public awareness of the science behind its special effects. Yet at least in one way it is already on the right path: its own new range of collaborations is impressively large. As well as the BBC, you can take interactive tours with The Ocean Agency, the Wildscreen Arkive, and the Jane Goodall Institute – all of whom put conservation up front. The Goodall journey to Tanzania’s Gombe National Park even describes the use of satellite imagery to measure conservation success.

 

More links with other citizen science projects around the world could turn the program into something truly ground-breaking. If it can incorporate these, then desktop-tourism may yet save the planet from Trump. 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496