Britain has had enough of quangos. That’s not my view, but the view of Cabinet Secretary Pat McFadden, who last month threatened to abolish “hundreds” of Britain’s quangos that could not justify their existence. The Government, he said, will “take back control” and reinstate ministerial oversight over quasi-independent Government bodies.
One quango that struggles to justify its existence was created on the very same day as McFadden’s announcement. The Equal Pay Regulatory and Enforcement Unit, introduced to support the new expansion of the Equality Act, is set to have extraordinary powers over unnecessary equal pay legislation.
The quango, almost entirely unexamined by the British press, will be able to litigate equal pay claims against local authorities and private companies, possibly to the point of bankruptcy. It will work with trade unions and other “allied” organisations. It will also conduct Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) research and effectively lobby the Government for more equality law.
Britain’s equal pay laws, however, are already past the point of overreach. Far from simply banning the paying of one person less than another for possessing an immutable characteristic (sex, ethnicity etc.), it has morphed into “equal value” legislation. The 2010 Equality Act determines whether different jobs are of the same value from somewhat arbitrary factors like “effort, skill and decision-making” — but does not give the prerogative to bosses.
This farcically resulted in the clothing shop Next losing a court case last year where the Employment Tribunal ruled that the mostly female shop-front staff deserved the same pay as the mostly male warehouse staff. Equally absurdly, Birmingham City Council was declared effectively bankrupt in 2023 over a £700 million equal value pay claim after already shelling out £1.4 billion in equal pay claims since 2010. Such is the devastating effect of this absurd legislation.
What all this could mean is that activist lawyers … will become taxpayer funded
The Government’s consultation for the new equal pay unit proposes handing it vast legal powers to enforce this law. It proposes the unit will bring legal proceedings, intervene in cases, and provide legal advice. It will also be able to enter into statutory agreements with employers, seek injunctions and issue compliance notices. It will facilitate dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration and conciliation.
What all this could mean is that activist lawyers — the very people behind the behemoth equal value pay claims of late — will become taxpayer funded. This includes equal value pay claims against dozens of councils from Coventry to Cumbria, and several supermarkets — Asda, Co-op, Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsbury’s.
In the case of Asda, the equal value pay claim could be as high as £1.2 billion — and therefore potentially cause higher prices for some of the poorest consumers. This deliberate and debilitating litigation should not be taxpayer-funded.
The Government’s consultation, however, is unambiguous about which spheres the equal pay quango should operate. It will build “capacity within allied sectors, organisations and communities”. This will include trade unions, who are explicitly approved for relationship-building in the Equality Office’s consultation. In other words, trade unions, and other left-leaning organisations will receive Government-funded help to take on employers.
The consultation also proposes the new equal pay unit embarks upon growing the DEI sector. It will “provide training on equal pay and good practice for employers, HR professionals and employees”. This should particularly worry the DEI professional services sector, where jobs could be replaced by a cheaper, taxpayer-funded alternative. A National Diversity and Inclusion Service, if you will.
Perhaps most worryingly, the Government proposes the Equal Pay Regulatory and Enforcement Unit should have lobbying powers. It is expected to monitor and publish reports and guidance. The Government says it should do this to “build understanding” and “best practice” on equal pay law.
Pleasant though this sounds, it is far from being within the right remit of Government. What exactly “best practice” means to an activist law firm will be very different to a shop like Next. Since the unit is expected to be friendly with trade unions and other “allied” groups, one can only assume that it will propose the same pay for different work solutions, and expanding our equality law.
What can one expect this new quango to do? It may launch an equal pay inquiry into the NHS, Tesco, or the Home Office. It may well argue for the further expansion of equal pay law. The Government — very alarmingly — already wants to expand supposed equal pay for equal value legislation to race and disability, despite the damage done in Birmingham and elsewhere. But why not go further? Why not include sexuality, age or religion, or any other of the nine protected characteristics given in the Equality Act?
The reason why not is because equal value pay legislation has nothing to do with discrimination. Far from being expanded, it should be abolished, along with mandatory pay gap reporting. It is a legal minefield for employers and undermines supply and demand in a remarkably anti-Market fashion.
What this terrifying new quango will do is cement the Equality Act into the heart of our economy. Once established, the quango will provide a never-ending, taxpayer-funded support network, research pool and activist lawyer hub from which to propose ever more equality legislation. If he really wanted to “take back control”, Pat McFadden could start by stopping the Equal Pay Regulatory and Enforcement Unit — and quango state overreach.
