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.

John Moore
Show Hide image

The man who created the fake Tube sign explains why he did it

"We need to consider the fact that fake news isn't always fake news at the source," says John Moore.

"I wrote that at 8 o'clock on the evening and before midday the next day it had been read out in the Houses of Parliament."

John Moore, a 44-year-old doctor from Windsor, is describing the whirlwind process by which his social media response to Wednesday's Westminster attack became national news.

Moore used a Tube-sign generator on the evening after the attack to create a sign on a TfL Service Announcement board that read: "All terrorists are politely reminded that THIS IS LONDON and whatever you do to us we will drink tea and jolly well carry on thank you." Within three hours, it had just fifty shares. By the morning, it had accumulated 200. Yet by the afternoon, over 30,000 people had shared Moore's post, which was then read aloud on BBC Radio 4 and called a "wonderful tribute" by prime minister Theresa May, who at the time believed it was a genuine Underground sign. 

"I think you have to be very mindful of how powerful the internet is," says Moore, whose viral post was quickly debunked by social media users and then national newspapers such as the Guardian and the Sun. On Thursday, the online world split into two camps: those spreading the word that the sign was "fake news" and urging people not to share it, and those who said that it didn't matter that it was fake - the sentiment was what was important. 

Moore agrees with the latter camp. "I never claimed it was a real tube sign, I never claimed that at all," he says. "In my opinion the only fake news about that sign is that it has been reported as fake news. It was literally just how I was feeling at the time."

Moore was motivated to create and post the sign when he was struck by the "very British response" to the Westminster attack. "There was no sort of knee-jerk Islamaphobia, there was no dramatisation, it was all pretty much, I thought, very calm reporting," he says. "So my initial thought at the time was just a bit of pride in how London had reacted really." Though he saw other, real Tube signs online, he wanted to create his own in order to create a tribute that specifically epitomised the "very London" response. 

Yet though Moore insists he never claimed the sign was real, his caption on the image - which now has 100,800 shares - is arguably misleading. "Quintessentially British..." Moore wrote on his Facebook post, and agrees now that this was ambiguous. "It was meant to relate to the reaction that I saw in London in that day which I just thought was very calm and measured. What the sign was trying to do was capture the spirit I'd seen, so that's what I was actually talking about."

Not only did Moore not mean to mislead, he is actually shocked that anyone thought the sign was real. 

"I'm reasonably digitally savvy and I was extremely shocked that anyone thought it was real," he says, explaining that he thought everyone would be able to spot a fake after a "You ain't no muslim bruv" sign went viral after the Leytonstone Tube attack in 2015. "I thought this is an internet meme that people know isn't true and it's fine to do because this is a digital thing in a digital world."

Yet despite his intentions, Moore's sign has become the centre of debate about whether "nice" fake news is as problematic as that which was notoriously spread during the 2016 United States Presidential elections. Though Moore can understand this perspective, he ultimately feels as though the sentiment behind the sign makes it acceptable. 

"I use the word fake in inverted commas because I think fake implies the intention to deceive and there wasn't [any]... I think if the sentiment is ok then I think it is ok. I think if you were trying to be divisive and you were trying to stir up controversy or influence people's behaviour then perhaps I wouldn't have chosen that forum but I think when you're only expressing your own emotion, I think it's ok.

"The fact that it became so-called fake news was down to other people's interpretation and not down to the actual intention... So in many interesting ways you can see that fake news doesn't even have to originate from the source of the news."

Though Moore was initially "extremely shocked" at the reponse to his post, he says that on reflection he is "pretty proud". 

"I'm glad that other people, even the powers that be, found it an appropriate phrase to use," he says. "I also think social media is often denigrated as a source of evil and bad things in the world, but on occasion I think it can be used for very positive things. I think the vast majority of people who shared my post and liked my post have actually found the phrase and the sentiment useful to them, so I think we have to give social media a fair judgement at times and respect the fact it can be a source for good."

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.