The 50th anniversary of Equal Pay laws in the UK
This year sees the 50th anniversary of Equal Pay laws (as between the sexes) in the UK – as well as the prospect of extending them to some other protected characteristics. Whereas the other protected characteristics wrap unequal pay within the standard tort-like anti-discrimination protection, the protected characteristic of sex has been protected through different means. While the original legislation (the Equal Pay Act 1970 in England, Wales and Scotland and the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970) was passed in May and December 1970 respectively, the provisions came into force, as intended, 5 years later (in December 1975). The reason for the delay was to give industry time to adapt to the ‘far-reaching changes’, though the unions wanted a shorter time and the employers a longer one (Castle, HC Deb Vol 795, Col 923 9 February 1970). As the Secretary of State noted at the time:
Seven years is too long for women to wait for this basic act of justice. Besides, if we were to enter the Common Market, we would be expected to catch up more quickly than that with the other members of the Community which have been making progress in this direction over the past 13 years. … On the other hand, I believe that it is quite unrealistic to imagine that industry—or, incidentally, the workers in industry—could adapt themselves to these changes in a mere two years. The Government believe that, given reasonable time, industry can adjust itself to these additional costs. (Castle, HC Deb Vol 795, Col 924 9 February 1970).
The UK, of course, did subsequently become a member of the then European Community within that time – and European Community/Union law became a driver for changes in the wording and operation of the UK equal pay legislation, not least through the inclusion of pensions and the introduction of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value in the 1980s (rather than limiting the comparison to like work or work rated as equivalent through a formal job evaluation scheme). On leaving the European Union, formerly directly effective European Union law provisions on comparators were brought into the national legislation (see, e.g., Hand, 2024).
According to composited Employment Tribunal figures, over the last 25 years the average number of equal pay claims is over 20,000 (with a median of 17,000) although the yearly figure varies widely with a high of over 60,000 and a low of under 5,000 claims. This variation is largely driven by multiple claims against a single employer (claims brought against Asda, Birmingham City Council and British Airways, for example, could see 10,000s of claimants) but it also reflects changes in the overall number of discrimination claims. When looked at as a proportion of all discrimination claims, the average and median proportions of equal pay claims are around 40% (with a high of 60% and, save for one abnormal year and one year where data is not available due to a system change, lows of around 20%).
The law can thus be seen to have some effect. More broadly, Our World in Data, a collaborative effort between researchers at the University of Oxford, and the non-profit organization Global Change Data Lab, have drawn on OECD data to show the changing pay gap over the years across various countries and have made their visualisations available under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY OurWorldinData.org/womens-rights).
It should, however, be highlighted that that chart shows estimates of full-time employees and self-employed workers and stops at 2016 – and moreover looks at the gender wage gap rather than the narrower legal issue of equal pay.
With regard to the first of those points, if one looks at UK figures for all employees including part-time employees, the pattern is similar – although as part-time workers tend to be paid less per hour and more women work part-time the gap for ‘all employees’ is higher than for either full-time or part-time employees; this is despite the fact that when looking just at part-time employees there has been a slight negative pay gap (i.e. women earning more than men) of under 5% for the last quarter century with the figure narrowing over the last decade (Francis-Devine, 2024 pp. 4 and 11).
With regard to the first of those points, if one looks at UK figures for all employees including part-time employees, the pattern is similar – although as part-time workers tend to be paid less per hour and more women work part-time the gap for ‘all employees’ is higher than for either full-time or part-time employees; this is despite the fact that when looking just at part-time employees there has been a slight negative pay gap (i.e. women earning more than men) of under 5% for the last quarter century with the figure narrowing over the last decade (Francis-Devine, 2024 pp. 4 and 11).
With regard to the second and third points, 2016 is a significant year when it comes to the UK as 2017 saw the introduction of a requirement on larger businesses (those with over 250 employees (or, if in Scotland, over 150)) and public authorities to report on gender pay gap information (e.g. Hand & Hooton, 2022). The power to do this was one of the few new provisions introduced by the Equality Act 2010, which unified much of the British anti-discrimination law but left equal pay broadly as it was (save for that and some provisions concerning comparators and employees disclosing their pay). Whereas equal pay concerns equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, the gender pay gap compares average or median hourly earnings of men and women and thus includes differences due to non-like work. This has shone a light on structural differences and is a means to seeking broader equality through considering action to potentially remedy what the unsophisticated figures suggest.
The Employment Rights Bill currently going through Parliament, which has been described as “huge, both literally and in terms of its importance” (Newman, 2025) only touches briefly on the gender pay gap (and nothing explicitly on equal pay) through expanding information requirements, so that those using outsourced workers may be identified, and through inserting a power to a require larger businesses (and the public sector) to prepare Equality Action Plans. While these plans may be broader in nature, the only matters expressly specified in the Bill are addressing the gender pay gap and supporting employees going through the menopause (in what would become section 78A(4)(a)&(b) of the Equality Act 2010).
However, the government have also announced a Draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill which, when and if passed into law, is both purported to strengthen equal pay claims based on those two protected characteristics, by “enshrining in law the full right to equal pay for ethnic minorities and disabled people, making it much easier for them to bring unequal pay claims”, and will extend statutory pay gap reporting to race and disability (Prime Minister’s Office, 2024, p.77). It is not currently clear precisely what the proposed law will look like but there is the suggestion that it will just mirror the provisions regarding equal pay and gender reporting (ibid.)
It may not, however, transpire to be so simple. As explored in ‘Equal Pay and the Equality Act 2010: An Accidental Paradox in Need of Change?’ (Hand and Hooton, 2024) the current difference in discriminatory equal pay protection between sex and the other protected characteristics may in some circumstances disadvantage sex-based claims and that may need to be addressed before replicating it across initially two of the other protected characteristics. The inherent differences in the nature of protected characteristics is more of an issue when looking at pay gaps – the gender pay gap may be due to a range of issues and the headline figures are intended to spark investigation – but sex is generally two dimensional and thus simpler to analyse. Race and disability, however, cover a range of attributes which are multi-dimensional which may see simplistic headline figures obscuring the wider picture and any drilling down may hit problems associated with low numbers which may lead to the questions raised being more readily brushed off rather than the matter being subject to the appropriate attention it deserves. The precise provisions will require close scrutiny.
It may not, however, transpire to be so simple. As explored in ‘Equal Pay and the Equality Act 2010: An Accidental Paradox in Need of Change?’ (Hand and Hooton, 2024) the current difference in discriminatory equal pay protection between sex and the other protected characteristics may in some circumstances disadvantage sex-based claims and that may need to be addressed before replicating it across initially two of the other protected characteristics. The inherent differences in the nature of protected characteristics is more of an issue when looking at pay gaps – the gender pay gap may be due to a range of issues and the headline figures are intended to spark investigation – but sex is generally two dimensional and thus simpler to analyse. Race and disability, however, cover a range of attributes which are multi-dimensional which may see simplistic headline figures obscuring the wider picture and any drilling down may hit problems associated with low numbers which may lead to the questions raised being more readily brushed off rather than the matter being subject to the appropriate attention it deserves. The precise provisions will require close scrutiny.
Leave a Reply