ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Country comments > Texts of comments: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Comments adopted by the CEACR: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Prospect of ratification of the most up-to-date Convention. The Committee takes note of the indication that the Government will continue to keep under review the opportunity to consider the ratification of the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152). The Committee invites the Government to provide information on any developments towards the possible ratification of Convention No. 152.

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) received on 30 August 2021 and the Government’s reply.
Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Assessing and addressing the gender pay gap. The Committee asked the Government to provide: (1) detailed information on the evolution of the gender pay gap and the measures adopted to address its underlying causes; and (2) statistics on the prevalence of overtime, disaggregated by sex and sector of employment. In its report, the Government refers to the data published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in the 2020 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) and indicates that the gender pay gap among all employees has decreased from 17.4 per cent in 2019 to 15.5 per cent in 2020, being the lowest recorded measurement since the survey began in 1997. The gender pay gap for full-time employees has decreased from 9 per cent in 2019 to 7.4 per cent in 2020 and the gender pay gap for part time employees to minus 2.9 per cent. The part-time gender pay gap for part-time workers is therefore in favour of women. The Committee notes that, according to the ASHE, the widest pay gaps are found in the following occupations: precision instrument makers and repairers (46 per cent), production managers and directors in mining and energy (38 per cent), IT engineers (36 per cent), financial institution managers and directors (34 per cent), electronical and electronics technicians (31 per cent), health associate professionals (31 per cent), functional and financial managers and directors (30 per cent). The survey also indicates that the difference in pay is largest among higher earners, showing that the 90-percentile male employee (who earns more than 90 per cent of other men employees, but less than ten per cent) earns substantially more than the equivalent women employee. The Committee notes however that the figures presented in the ASHE exclude overtime from the calculations.
For Northern Ireland specifically, the Government provides the results of the 2020 Northern Ireland ASHE, with detailed statistics on the gender pay gap in the region. Pursuant to the survey, 2020 is the 11th consecutive year where full-time female employees in Northern Ireland earned at least as much as full-time males on average (46p more per hour). It is the only region where the gender pay gap for full-time employees is in favour of women. Considering all employees, the median female employees’ hourly rate is £1.01 lower than the median male employees’ hourly rate. The Committee also notes that the figures presented in the Northern Ireland ASHE do not consider overtime.
On the measures adopted, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a significant cause of pay gaps is occupational segregation and it is therefore introducing a number of initiatives to make it easier for women to access high-paid jobs in all sectors, through the adoption of support programmes to this aim, such as specific protections for female-led-start-ups and new childcare support. The Government is also raising awareness on the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers, through programmes such as “STEM ambassadors”, 45 per cent of whom are women. It is also funding a programme to support computer science teaching that includes a Gender Balance in Computing programme which aims to identify interventions that schools can implement to improve girls’ participation in computing. The Government is also encouraging employers to offer initiatives such as flexible working and returners programmes which can improve prospects for both women and men. Noting this information, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed statistics on the evolution of the gender pay gap and information on the nature and the impact of the measures adopted to reduce such gap. In this regard, the Committee also refers to its comments on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) regarding equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. Noting that the ASHE and the Northern Ireland ASHE do not consider overtime in the calculation of men and women’s respective hourly rates, the Committee asks once again the Government to collect and provide statistics on the prevalence of overtime, disaggregated by sex and sector of employment.
Pay inequalities. Private and public sectors. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the gender pay gap reporting and its impact in reducing gender pay inequalities in the private sector as well as any measures taken to promote the principle of the Convention. The Government explains that the Gender Pay Gap Regulations 2017 apply in Great Britain to all employers with 250 or more employees and require them to publish and report to the Government on the gender pay gap. The Government stresses that, following the introduction of this obligation, over 10,500 employers report annually on the gender pay gap, bringing much greater transparency and prompting national awareness on the matter. The reporting programme has been extremely successful with 100 per cent compliance during the first two years of reporting. However, the Committee notes that, due to the COVD-19 outbreak in 2020 and the associated impacts on the workforce, the Government Equality Office (GEO) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHCR) decided to suspend the reporting obligation on the gender pay gap for 2020. For 2021, it decided that employers would have an additional six months to report. The Government further indicates that to support employers, it has published advice on how to diagnose their pay gap and develop an action plan, alongside evidence-based guidance on practical actions to close the gap. With regard to Northern Ireland, section 19 of the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, gave powers to the Department for Employment and Learning to establish a mandatory system for employers to report gender pay gap information. The Government indicates that this section has yet to be implemented due to a combination of two factors: the lack of an executive in Northern Ireland from January 2017 to January 2019 and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Government assures that the Executive of Northern Ireland remains committed to the implementation of section 19 of the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, in the context of the development of a new Gender Equality Strategy which is due to be published, after the approval of the Executive of Northern Ireland, in December 2021.
Further to the Committee’s request concerning the implementation of the reporting obligation on the gender pay gap, the Government indicates that in England, the regulations which apply to public bodies are the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties and Public Authorities) Regulations 2017. These impose reporting obligations in relation to the gender pay gap. Public bodies in Scotland and Wales are covered by separate regulations. It adds that very high levels of compliance in the public sector were seen during the first two years of mandatory gender pay gap reporting (96 per cent and 94 per cent respectively by the deadline, eventually rising at 100 per cent compliance). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the reporting obligation was suspended for 2020 and additional time was granted in 2021 for public bodies. The Government further indicates that all ministerial departments have published their action plans for reducing their gender pay gap, alongside the publication of their figures.
In its observations, the TUC indicates that there has been no progress concerning the issues raised in its previous observations regarding the low thresholds and lack of enforcement of reporting obligations on gender pay gaps. The TUC also expresses concern over the decision of the Government to push back the reporting deadline during the pandemic. For the TUC, this decision is part of a wider failure in the Government’s COVID-19 response to properly consider the impact of policy decisions on women. Specifically, the TUC is concerned that the Government is failing: (1) in its legal responsibilities, under the public sector equality duty, to ensure that its policies do not disadvantage or discriminate against women; (2) to carry out equality impact assessments on key policy decisions and to take into account the disproportionate impact of self-isolation on women, as fewer of them are eligible for statutory sick pay; and (3) to take into account the additional caring responsibilities placed on women as a result of health restrictions and policies on schools and childcare facilities closures. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its reply to the TUC’s observations, that the statutory review of the gender pay gap reporting regulations will be completed by Spring next year. The Government adds that pay gap reporting: (1) is being used as a proxy measure to enable employees and employers to assess whether the pay is fair; and (2) increases internal transparency about pay, and how pay decisions are made. However, the Government stresses that, being hugely reliant on the quality and breadth of diversity data collected by organizations, pay gap information is seen as just one of a range of metrics that employers can use, and that the most meaningful metrics to indicate fairness will differ depending on the size, nature and location of the organization. Regarding the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Government indicates that it is taking a number of steps to drive effective action, through the Equality Hub that coordinates a working group promoting compliance and sharing expertise, resources and best practice and that provides advice. The Government recalls that the legal requirement in the Equality Act is simply to have “due regard” to the matters set out in the Public Sector Equality Duty and that no specific action is prescribed to demonstrate that “due regard” has been had, though the courts have made it clear that recording the steps taken by the decision maker in seeking to meet the duty is an important evidential element in demonstrating legal compliance and that a systematic approach is good practice. With respect to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on equality, the Government states that it has offered an unprecedented level of support to both individuals and businesses during this pandemic, such as the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS), and carefully considered the equality impact of both individual measures and fiscal events on those sharing protected characteristics, including gender. With regard to the evaluation of Shared Parental Leave and Pay, the Government adds that: (1) the fieldwork for much of the research was completed in February 2020; (2) the data are currently being processed; and (3) analysis of this data which will be published, has taken longer than expected due to the impact of COVID-19. The Committee notes this information. In this regard, the Committee stresses the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on the employment situation of women: in most countries, they have suffered greater rates of job loss generally and face significantly higher rates of unemployment than men. Moreover, women are over-represented in high-risk sectors, such as in care work, where demand for their services has increased due to the pandemic. As a result, they have been required to work excessive hours while also continuing to shoulder the primary burden of unpaid care work (General report of the Committee of Experts, adopted in 2020, paragraph 45). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the measures adopted to address and raise awareness on pay inequality in the private sector. The Committee also asks the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to comparative rates of job loss among women and men; comparative rates of unemployment; the income of women and comparative work force participation in specific high-risk employment sectors where demand for services has led to required excess hours worked, and to provide information on whether the gender pay gap has widened because of the pandemic. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the findings of the evaluation of Shared Parental Leave and Pay. It also asks the Government to provide information on the main causes of gender pay gaps identified in the public sector and the results of the action plans adopted to reduce these gaps. The Committee also asks the Government to provide specific statistical data on pay levels in the public sector, disaggregated by sex and occupations.
Article 3. Pay audits. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on any case of application of the provisions of section 139A of the Equality Act 2010 and of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014 on the possibility for an employment tribunal to order the employer to carry out an equal pay audit. The Government indicates that it is not aware of whether or not these provisions have been used, as most cases do not result in a judgment, either because they are settled outside courts or withdrawn. Recalling that equal plan audits are an important means of promoting and ensuring the implementation of the principle of the Convention, the Committee again asks the Government to indicate in some detail whether and how these tools are being used by the Employment Tribunals.
Articles 2(2)(c) and 4. Collective agreements. Cooperation with social partners. The Committee has repeatedly asked for information on any cooperation initiatives with social partners as well as any collective agreement that includes equal pay issues or promotes the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Government indicates that it has supported the business-led and voluntary Hampton-Alexander review published in February 2021 into increasing the number of women in senior positions in the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. It also refers to the Sector Deals that are partnerships between the government and industries on sector-specific issues and indicates that a number of sector deals include ambitious commitments to increase the proportion of women. The Government further indicates that it met with the TUC to discuss gender equality legislation, evidence-based actions for employers and the TUC’s actions on gender diversity. The Committee recalls the importance of ensuring that the provisions of collective agreements do not result in indirect wage discrimination against women and that introducing equal pay clauses in collective agreements can be an efficient step to addressing the issue, (General survey of 2012, paras. 694 and 729). While taking note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether and how collective agreements take into account the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value (such as through the introduction of objective job evaluation methods in the agreements, or the inclusion of equal pay clauses). It further asks the Government to continue to provide information on the manner in which it cooperates with workers’ and employers’ organizations to give effect to the principle of the Convention.
Enforcement. The Committee had asked the Government to provide information on any new development regarding the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 that had been quashed by the Supreme Court. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indications that the Ministry of Justice has frequent discussions with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on many aspects of Employment Tribunals and that no final decision has been made regarding the re-introduction of fees, on which any formal proposal would be subject to a public consultation process. Furthermore, as stated above, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that most cases do not result in a judgment, either because they are settled out of courts or withdrawn. The Committee stresses that the judicial process of individual complaints to courts or labour tribunals, including providing appropriate remedies and imposing sanctions, is an important feature of the enforcement of the Convention and that courts and tribunals have a crucial role in developing jurisprudence furthering the principles of the Convention, and in providing remedies including orders for equal remuneration, compensation, and reinstatement (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 883). The Committee therefore asks the Government to adopt measures to ensure the efficiency of the remedies available, both in the private and public sector, before the Employment Tribunals and to provide detailed information on the number of complaints brought in relation to equal pay, as well as on the outcome of these cases (including on the number of settlements, number of withdrawals or dismissals, sanctions imposed and compensation granted).

C108 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments in relation to the observations submitted by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and its affiliate Nautilus International concerning the importance of ratifying the Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention (Revised), 2003, as amended (No. 185). The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that (1) in 2019, it carried out an initial engagement with stakeholders on the possible ratification of Convention No. 185, including the UK Chamber of Shipping, representing shipowners, and Nautilus International and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, representing seafarers; (2) the responses from these three organisations gave clear support to the ratification; (3) the ratification would also create the opportunity to extend the eligibility for a UK seafarer identity document to fishers who are not eligible under the UK’s implementing legislation for Convention No. 108; (4) it has declared its intention to work over the next five years towards the ratification of Convention No. 185 in “Maritime 2050: Navigating the future”, a statement of the Government’s vision for the maritime sector published in January 2019; and (5) while the intention to make progress towards the ratification has been hindered most recently by the need to dedicate resources to addressing COVID-19 related issues, it is now fully engaged in the process.
The Committee recalls that, in the framework of the Standards Review Mechanism, the ILO Governing Body, as recommended by the Special Tripartite Committee on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), classified Convention No. 108 as “outdated”. At its 343rd Session (November 2021), the Governing Body requested the Office to encourage Member States that are still bound by Convention No. 108 to ratify Convention No. 185. In this context, the Committee welcomes the intention of the Government, supported by social partners, to ratify Convention No. 185 and encourages it to examine the possibility to extend its application to the non-metropolitan territories still bound by Convention No. 108.

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) received on 30 August 2021 and communicated to the Government. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s reply.
Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Protection against discrimination based on social origin and political opinion. Law and practice. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Equality Act 2010 did not specifically refer to the grounds of social origin and political opinion. It requested the Government to provide concrete examples of how cases alleging discrimination based on social origin and “caste” are dealt with by courts and tribunals, and information on the number of cases of discrimination based on political opinion and on the measures taken to protect workers against such form of discrimination.
Discrimination based on social origin. With regard to the protection against discrimination based on membership of a “caste”, the Government, in its report, states that it is aware of only three cases brought before the courts that involved considerations of caste and its relation to social origin. In Naveed v. Aslam (2012), the Employment Tribunal declared that the complaint was not well-founded as the “incidents were entirely unrelated to the claimant’s caste (or indeed to any other racially tainted characteristic)”. In Begraj v. Manak (2014), the case was not concluded after the judge in charge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal recused herself. In Tirkey v. Chandhok (2014), the Employment Appeal Tribunal found in favour of the claimant’s contention that she was discriminated against because of her low status including by reason of her caste. While the judge accepted that “caste” was not explicitly part of the Equality Act 2010, he also stated that many of the identifying features of a person’s descent which determined their caste related to their “ethnic origins” and this is explicitly protected under the Equality Act. The claimant was awarded compensation of £180,000. In the Government’s view, this judgment means that it is likely that anyone who believes that they have been discriminated against because of caste could now bring a race discrimination claim under the existing ethnic origin limb of the race provisions of the Equality Act 2010 because of their descent. The Government considers therefore that the best way to provide the necessary protection against unlawful discrimination because of caste is by relying on emerging case-law as developed by courts and tribunals. Consequently, section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010 providing that a Minister of the Crown: (1) must by order amend this section so as to provide for caste to be an aspect of race, and (2) may by order amend this Act so as to provide for an exception to a provision of this Act to apply, or not to apply, to caste or to apply, or not to apply, to race in specified circumstances, will be repealed. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the observations of the TUC on the employment situation of working-class workers. The TUC emphasizes that people from working class backgrounds still earn less than those from middle class backgrounds, even when they have the same qualifications and do the same type of job. Even when those from working-class backgrounds attend university, they still enter the job market earning less than those from middle-class and private-school backgrounds. The TUC’s analysis of data provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) shows that graduates with parents in “professional and routine” jobs are more than twice as likely as working-class graduates to start on a high salary, no matter what degree level they attain. The Government refers in its response to the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage that it states provide essential protection for the lowest paid workers.
While taking note of the information provided by the Government on the case law regarding discrimination based on “caste”, the Committee recalls that discrimination and lack of equal opportunities based on social origin refers to situations in which an individual’s membership of a class, socio-occupational category or caste determine his or her occupational future (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 802). The Committee notes that there has been only one successful case of discrimination connected to “caste”, which may indicate that the absence of explicit mention of it in the Equality Act demonstrates a lack of awareness of its protection under the Act. The Committee notes with regret the fact that the Government is proposing to repeal section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.
Further, the notion of “social origin” is broader in scope than the notion of “caste” referenced in the case law reported by the Government. The Committee takes note of the Government’s response to the TUC’s comments that it does not propose to introduce the socio-economic duty under Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 for England or in respect of Great-Britain wide bodies, and notes with regret that the Government does not propose to add a new characteristic to the Equality Act 2010 addressing social origin.
Discrimination based on political opinion. With regard to cases relating to discrimination based on political opinion, the Government indicates that there are no central records on the number of cases brought domestically, broken down by protected characteristic. It is open to people to contest that their political beliefs are so strong that they can be captured by the religion or belief provisions within the Equality Act 2010, and domestic courts have been open to considering such cases on their individual merits. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion is therefore protected against. Furthermore, the Committee notes that while the Equality Act 2010 covers “philosophical belief”, it does not appear to cover “political opinion”. The Committee notes that protection for political opinion implies protection in respect of the activities of expressing or demonstrating opposition to established political principles and opinions, and covers discrimination based on political affiliation. The notion of “belief” explained by the Government is narrower than the concept of political opinion enshrined in the Convention (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 805).The Committee also recalls that where legal provisions are adopted to give effect to the principle of the Convention, they should include at least all the grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 853). The Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that at least all the prohibited grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) are included in the legislation and that, in the meantime, workers are protected in practice against discrimination based on their social origin and political opinion. It further asks for detailed information on the measures adopted to address discrimination faced by workers from working-class backgrounds reported by the TUC, as well as on any cases relating to claims of discrimination based on social origin or political opinion, including the facts of those cases (such as the scope and particulars of discrimination based on social origin, at least in terms of salaries and opportunities for advancement) and the remedies provided.
Discrimination based on religion. The Committee previously requested the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to address discrimination and stereotyped attitudes concerning religion, including on the impact of these measures on access to employment and education for the Muslim community. The Committee takes note of the indication that the Government engages with Muslim communities through a number of faith and integration projects. These projects are often geographically targeted to address problems faced by the communities where there can be high degrees of segregation and often seek to address issues of disadvantage or exclusion that create barriers to integration and employability. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide data on the impact of the measures taken on access to employment and education for the Muslim community, as well as any other activities undertaken specifically in the field of discrimination in employment and occupation.
Northern Ireland. The Committee has been asking the Government to take steps to abolish the exclusion of teachers from protection against discrimination on the ground of religious belief in Northern Ireland (section 71(1) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order, 1998). The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain any information in this regard. The Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to repeal the exclusion of teachers from protection against discrimination on the ground of religious belief in Northern Ireland provided in section 71(1) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order, 1998.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) received on 30 August 2021 and communicated to the Government.
Article 1(1) of the Convention. Discrimination based on sex and disability. Sexual harassment against women workers with disabilities and against lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) workers. The Committee takes note of the observations of the TUC on the results of its survey “Sexual harassment of disabled women in the workplace”, showing that: (1) 7 out of 10 disabled women respondents reported having been sexually harassed at work as compared to 52 per cent of women in general; (2) disabled women experience higher levels of every type of sexually harassing behaviour reflecting the imbalance of power disabled women encounter at work and in wider society; and (3) 54 per cent of disabled women respondents reported having experienced two or more types of sexually harassing behaviours, and 45 per cent three or more types. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the TUC on the research it conducted on sexual harassment at work against LGBT workers, which showed that 68 per cent of the respondents reported being sexually harassed at work and two thirds did not report this harassment to their employer. One in four were prevented from raising the issue by their fear of being “outed” at work. The Government states that it is committed to strengthening the protection against sexual harassment in the workplace by introducing a new proactive duty on employers requiring them to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from experiencing sexual harassment; introducing explicit protections for employees from harassment by third parties, for example customers or clients; supporting the Equality and Human Rights Commission to produce a statutory code of practice on this issue, to raise awareness to ensure that employers are clear on their responsibilities, and looking closely at extending the time limit for bringing Equality Act based claims to a tribunal to six months. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken to address the concerns raised by the TUC with regard to the higher levels of sexual harassment against workers with disabilities and LGBT workers, and any measures adopted to prevent such harassment in employment and occupation. The Committee requests the Government, in particular, to provide information on the introduction of the proposed new protections on sexual harassment, including the date of their implementation and their impact.
Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment for workers with disabilities. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that it published the National Disability Strategy in July 2021, setting out its vision to improve the lives of people with disabilities. According to the strategy, the disability employment gap has narrowed significantly in recent years, from 33.8 percentage points in 2014 to 28.6 percentage points in 2021. This employment gap decreases as the level of qualification increases – down to 15.2 percentage points for people with a degree. The Government acknowledges that despite this progress, too many workers with disabilities still find themselves excluded from the job market. The COVID-19 pandemic has also had a negative impact on their employment situation as workers with disabilities are likely to have experienced a reduction in earnings through redundancy, a reduction in hours or being furloughed. The Committee notes the detailed data provided by the Government on the situation of persons with disabilities in the country, in particular that around one out of five persons with disabilities hold a degree level qualification, compared to a third of non-disabled people and that persons with disabilities are nearly three times more likely not to have any qualifications. The Committee notes that the National Disability Strategy provides for the adoption of a series of measures to improve access to work of workers with disabilities, including: encouraging employers to recruit; retain and promote employees with disabilities and create inclusive workplaces; scaling up supported employment services; strengthening rights in the workplace; encouraging flexible working hours and introducing carers leave; and improving access to advice on employment rights. The Government also provides detailed information on a series of programmes established to support the employment of workers with disabilities, including the Work Choice programme, the Work and Health Programme (WHP), the Specialist Employability Support (SES), the Small Employer Offer (SEO), the Access to Work (AtW), the Disability Confident Employer Scheme, and the programme on Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND). In this regard, the Committee takes note of the TUC’s observations that the COVID-19 pandemic had exacerbated the barriers faced by workers with disabilities. The TUC stresses that many of them have not shared their conditions or impairments with their employers, believing that it would lead to negative consequences and that major difficulties for accessing to reasonable adjustments continued during the pandemic. The Committee notes the Government’s response to the comments of the TUC that though the pandemic did initially reverse the positive trends showing a fall in the disability employment rates and a widening of the disability employment gap between April and December 2020, the disability employment rate returned to its pre-pandemic level in spring 2021 with the disability employment gap also narrowing throughout the first six months of 2021. The Government states that this suggests that, after some initial impacts, there are encouraging signs of recovery and, overall, currently no disproportionate impact on the number and rate of disabled people in employment as a result of the pandemic. Further, the Government states that there is a duty on employers under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments and the Access to Work Scheme can fund support tailored to an individual’s needs for these purposes. Furthermore, the Government states that the new Access to Work Adjustments Passport is being piloted and this will capture in work support needs enabling the passport holder to have informed conversations with a potential employer and will provide greater flexibility for people with disabilities to move between jobs. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the National Disability Strategy in practice to promote the employment of persons with disabilities and their access to various occupations, and its impact on the access of workers with disabilities to employment, including detailed statistical data. It also requests the Government to provide specific information on the type of reasonable accommodation measures adopted in favour of workers with disabilities. The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide specific information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the employment of workers with disabilities, and the measures taken to mitigate such impact. The Committee lastly requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the Access to Work Adjustments Passport pilot.
Equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. The Committee previously requested the Government to continue to provide information on: (1) the results of the measures adopted to address occupational sex segregation and to promote the participation of women in a wide variety of jobs; and (2) the impact of the measures adopted regarding childcare support, shared parental leave and flexible working arrangements on the participation of women in full-time and part-time employment. On the results obtained to address occupational segregation, the Committee takes note of the indications by the Government that: in January 2021, women represented 34.3 per cent of the boards of the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies, up from 24.5 per cent in October 2017; there were no all-male boards in the FTSE 350, this fell from 8 in 2017; the number of boards with only one women fell from 116 in 2015 to 16; in October 2021, in the FTSE 350, women made up 29.4 per cent of senior leadership roles (defined as the combination of the Executive Committee and their direct reports), up from 24.5 per cent in 2017. The Government also reports that it is continuing its work to increase the number of girls taking STEM subjects at school, with several funding programmes to increase the take-up of these subjects. There was a 31 per cent increase in girls’ entries to STEM A levels in England between 2010 and 2019. Over the same period, the number of women accepted onto full-time STEM undergraduate courses increased by 34 percent. Girls remain under-represented in apprenticeships in STEM, but their representation in STEM apprenticeships is increasing.
On the impact of the shared parental leave scheme, the Government indicates that in the 2019–20 tax year, 13,000 individuals claimed shared parental pay, of which 10,200 were male employees and 2,900 were female employees. The number of individual claims for shared parental leave had quadrupled between the 2014–15 and the 2019–20 tax years. The Committee takes note of the Government’s response to the TUC’s comments that that while the Government is currently evaluating the scheme, the analysis of the data has taken longer than expected because of the need to prioritize immediate support to parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government states that they will publish their findings, alongside the Government’s Response to a 2019 consultation in due course. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the observations of the TUC regretting that the evaluation of the scheme has not been published yet. The TUC also regrets that: (1) the low pay provided for under the scheme (£145.18 per week) makes it unaffordable for many fathers: (2) agency workers and those on zero-hour contracts do not qualify; and (3) parents can only get shared parental leave when mothers give up part of their maternity leave.
On the right to request flexible working, the Government indicates that this right was extended in 2014, through the adoption of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014. The Government stated that a study on the implementation of these regulations will also be published in 2021. As the COVID-19 pandemic shifted the way that individuals and employers think about flexible working arrangements, the Government reconvened the Flexible Working Taskforce to make the most of the lessons learned from this period. Furthermore, the Government notes that offering flexible working in job advertisements increases the number of female applicants by 16 percent. Regarding childcare, the Government refers to the 30 hours free childcare for working parents who earn at least the equivalent of 16 hours per week at the National Minimum Wage and indicates that an estimated 345,700 children benefit from this programme. The Committee takes note of the Government’s response to the TUC’s comments that it published its consultation on making flexible working the default on 23rd September 2021. The consultation exercise ended on 1 December 2021. The proposals seek to increase availability and uptake of flexible working among all employees, while recognizing that flexible working arrangements can particularly benefit certain groups, including working parents.
In addition to this information, the Committee takes note of the details regarding the measures adopted to address gender segregation (including measures to promote women’s and girls’ participation in STEM, and women’s participation in leadership positions), and related to child care and flexible hours that were reported in the National Report of the United Kingdom on the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on its efforts to address occupational sex segregation and to promote the participation of women in a wider variety of jobs. Noting the information provided regarding the measures on childcare support, shared parental leave and flexible working arrangements, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of these measures: (i) on shared parental leave and the flexible working time arrangements; and (ii) on the participation of women in full-time and part-time employment. It also requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to address the concerns raised by the TUC regarding the shared parental leave scheme.
Equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, colour or national extraction. Ethnic minorities. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on: (1) the results of the Black and Minority Ethnic 2020 Plan and the Equality Objectives for 2016–20 as well as any other topical initiatives; (2) the steps taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of ethnic minority groups and combat stereotypes, as well as on the results obtained so far as regard their rate of employment and type of jobs occupied; and (3) the concerns raised by the TUC that the Immigration Act 2016 prohibited undocumented workers from claiming rights at work by fear of being arrested and deported. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indications that the Race Disparity Unit (RDU) collects data on the employment of different ethnic minorities that the Office of National Statics (ONS) publishes quarterly in its Labour Market Status by Ethnic Group. The Committee also takes note of the information provided on the programmes in place to improve the employment of people from ethnic minority backgrounds, including through the National Mentoring Programme, the Plan for Jobs, the Ten Point Plan aiming at the creation of green jobs, and the Flexible Support Fund. The Committee further notes the results of the Parker Review published in March 2021 on the representation of ethnic minorities on the board of 100 FTSE companies, showing an increase in the number of ethnic minorities represented in the boardroom (75 as at November 2020 from 52 in January 2020). The Government is taking action in 20 targeted areas identified from the results of the Race Disparity Audit conducted in 2017 and updated annually. For the year 2020, the ethnic minority employment rate was 67.9 per cent, an increase of 1.7 and 1.8 percentage points from 2019 and 2018, respectively. The ethnic minority unemployment rate is 3.5 points higher than that of white groups. Those with Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds have the lowest employment rate of 57.9 per cent of all ethnic groups, though this is an increase of 0.8 per cent points and 1.9 per cent points from 2019 and 2018, respectively. They are more likely to be in low skilled, low paying occupations than any other group and receive the lowest average hourly pay. Black/African/Caribbean have the highest unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent, 6.5 percentage points higher than that of white groups.
In this regard, the Committee also takes note of the observations of TUC stressing that a significant pay gap exists for both Black and Minority Ethnic workers (BME). The median pay for white people was £12.40 per hour compared with £12.11 for those from a BME background –with significant regional variations, including a 23.8 per cent pay gap among the two groups in London. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought disproportionate difficulties for BME workers. According to TUC, the figures published by the ONS for August 2021 reveal that last year, the unemployment rate for BME workers has risen from 6.1 per cent to 8 per cent (31 per cent increase), that is three times the rate for white workers, which has risen from 3.6 per cent to 4 per cent (an 11 per cent increase). The TUC is also worried as figures show that BME workers are far more likely to be employed on zero-hour contracts than white workers. For instance, BME women are almost twice as likely to be on a zero-hours contract than white men (4.5 per cent compared to 2.5 per cent), and they are almost one and a half times more likely to be on zero-hours contracts compared to white women (3.4 per cent). The Government states in its response to the observations made by the TUC, that the Independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, in a report in April this year, noted that the pandemic is likely to have a mixed impact on the employment rate and financial stability of ethnic minority groups. The Government states that, historically, employment rates of ethnic minority groups have decreased more than overall employment rates during economic downturns in the UK. It highlights that such a decrease indicates a risk to ethnic minority groups if the economic fallout from the COVID-19 crisis fails to turn into a V-shaped recovery. It also states that zero hours contracts provide important flexibility in the labour market which benefits employers and workers. However, the Government states that it recognizes that some workers on zero hours contracts would like more stability in their working hours and that it is committed to taking forward a key measure to include the right for workers in Great Britain to request a more predictable contract. This means that those who would like more certainty will be able to request a more fixed working pattern from their employer after 26 weeks of service.
The TUC believes that the Government’s plans on adopting a new Nationality and Borders Bill will increase the exploitation of workers with irregular status who would have no legal recourse to claim rights at work (since for example, wages of undocumented workers are considered as the proceed of crimes) and access healthcare. The Committee recalls that under the Convention all migrant workers, including those in an irregular situation, must be protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of the grounds set out in Article 1(1)(a) (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 779).
The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the steps taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of ethnic minority groups and combat stereotypes, and the results obtained. It also requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken to reduce the pay gap for BME workers and the disproportionate recourse to zero-hour contracts referred to by the TUC. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of COVID-19 on employment rates for ethnic minority groups.
The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the introduction and implementation of the new right to request a more predictable contract, including the number of workers exercising such a right, and the rate at which such requests are granted.
The Committee notes the Government’s comments on the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide information on the impact of the Immigration Act 2016 and if adopted, of the Nationality and Borders Bill, on the protection of undocumented migrant workers against discrimination based on race, colour or national extraction.
Racial Equality Strategy 2015–25 for Northern Ireland. The Committee also notes the Northern Ireland Racial Equality Indicators Report: 2014–2019 (Published in 31 March 2021) provided by the Government. This states that: (1) the percentage of minority ethnic school leavers with no qualifications had decreased from 5.8 per cent in 2013–14 to 2.2 per cent in 2018–19; (2) at the 2011 Census, 30.2 per cent of minority ethnic people were in “managerial” or “professional” occupations; compared with 25.8 per cent white people; (3) in 2019, the proportion of respondents reporting they were prejudiced against people from minority ethnic communities had increased significantly since the baseline (2014: 24 per cent, 2018: 20 per cent, 2019: 29 per cent); (4) the number of racist incidents reported has increased from the 2013–14 baseline (976) to 2018–19 (1,124); and (5) in the latest available data (2017–18), only 3 per cent of all public appointment applications were from minority ethnic people. The Committee also notes that the Northern Ireland Racial Equality Strategy (RES) (2015–2025) establishes a framework for government departments (and others) to tackle racial inequalities, to eradicate racism and crime and, along with the Strategy ‘Together: Building a United Community’, to promote good race relations and social cohesion. The strategy has seven aims to address specific areas of concern developed in consultation with minority ethnic representatives. They include: (1) elimination of racial inequality, (2) combating racism and hate crime, (3) equality of service provision, (4) participation, (5) social cohesion, (6) capacity-building, and (7) cultural identity. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the steps taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of ethnic minority groups and combat stereotypes, and the results obtained. It also requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken to increase access of ethnic minorities to public appointments. Further, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on racist incidents, which may impede workers’ ability to access the labour market, and the steps taken to address this.
LGBT Action Plan and Advisory Panel. The Committee takes note of the TUC’s observations indicating that the 2018 LGBT Action Plan was abandoned and that the LGBT Advisory Panel that had been established to support the Government in meeting the goals established in the plan was disbanded in April 2021. The TUC indicates that the Government had announced plans to replace the panel but that these plans have not been set out. The Government in its response to the TUC’s observations states that its priorities remain introducing a ban on conversion therapy, delivering the “Safe to be me” conference in June 2022 and the year of action around that event and digitizing the gender recognition certificate application process. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the implementation of the 2018 LGBT Action Plan, as well as on the impact of the decision to disband the LGBT Advisory Panel to achieve the goals set out in the plan. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new plans adopted or envisaged to address equality and non-discrimination in employment and occupation for LBGT workers.
Article 3(a). Cooperation of workers’ and employers’ organizations. Equality bodies. The Committee had asked the Government to provide information on the involvement and participation of social partners in the work of equality bodies. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) operates independently from the Government and makes its own strategic decisions on how to engage with the social partners as well as their level of participation and engagement on key policy initiatives. The EHRC’s Framework Document, establishes that the Chair and Board members’ appointments will be made by the Minister for Women and Equalities with regard to the Paris Principles, which stress the need for “pluralist representation”, referring among other members of the civil society to representatives of trade unions. The Government further specifies that the EHRC’s Strategic Plan sets out five priority areas to work on, including Priority aim 1 on equal access to labour market and fair treatment at work. On this, the EHCR engages with the trade unions, including the TUC, and also takes on board the expertise of workers in specific areas, such as education and health and social care. It works in close collaboration with trade unions to consult and negotiate in all relevant matters. The Committee takes note of this information.
Awareness-raising and enforcement. The Committee had asked for information on the impact of the withdrawal from the European Union on the application of the Convention. Further to its request, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the protections provided in the Equality Act 2010, some of which are derived from the legislation of the European Union, will continue to apply.
The Committee has also repeatedly requested the Government to provide information on the administrative and judicial decisions concerning the implementation of the Convention and to provide information on the impact of the removal of the employment tribunals’ power to make wider recommendations. It notes that the Government does not provide information on the number of decisions nor on the trends in relation to discrimination claims and their rates of success. The Government indicates that the tribunals power to make wider recommendations under the Equality Act 2010 created a perception of undue burden on, and unfairness for, businesses and did not serve any useful purpose. The estimated cost of making wider recommendations to employers who did implement a recommendation was about £2,000. The Government states that ensuring changes are instigated by the employer without the need for recommendations means that they are more likely to be committed to and see positive results. Moreover, the tribunals’ recommendations were often that individual or management groups should undertake diversity training, in particular “unconscious bias” training, that have been shown to be of little value. While taking note of these indications, the Committee recalls that public awareness-raising, including on “unconscious bias” is essential to address prejudice and stereotypes regarding the professional abilities and aspirations of certain groups with lead to exclusion and discrimination in society and the labour market (General Survey of 2012, paragraph 865). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any administrative or judicial decisions on discrimination in employment and occupation, as well as information on the number and nature of discrimination claims brought before the employment tribunals and on their outcome. It further requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted to raise awareness of prejudices and stereotypes regarding the professional abilities of certain groups in the private and the public sectors.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer