
Black and minority ethnic workers are losing out on £3,200,000,000
Nationally, there is a 6% pay gap for employees from Black, African Caribbean or Black British ethnic groups, compared to their white counterparts. And according to a Resolution Foundation 2018 report, this amounts to £3.2billion in lost wages.
The bad news doesn't stop there, though. London specifically has the largest gap in the UK at a shocking 23.8%, which is appalling because it is one of the most diverse capital cities in the world.
But it gets worse – in specific sectors, the gap is even more pronounced. A GMB London survey showed that London's Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) public sector workers take home on average 37% less than their white colleagues, which is reportedly due to reported favouritism, management bias, and malpractice.
On top of that, we already know that Black and minority ethnic people are much more likely to be in 'deep poverty' than white people.
I want to close the ethnicity pay gap. And as the Chair of the London Parliamentary Labour Party, I want to see serious action to close that huge London pay gap, specifically.
I believe the first step to tackle this is to introduce mandatory ethnicity pay reporting. And I have found that it's easier to convince people to acknowledge the ethnicity pay gap once you tell them about the gender pay gap first.
For several years, companies of 250 employees or more have been required to report data on their gender pay gaps. I believe it is no coincidence that the gender pay gap has reduced over time.
I remember one friend telling me that her company, upon realising their gender pay gap, gave her an instant £4,000 raise.
Companies should also have to report their ethnicity pay gaps.
If we measure something, we can fix it. But at the current rate, it will take another 40 years to fix the ethnicity pay gap.
Shining a light on inequality and injustice is vital. So having the data out there pushes companies to act, and it shows you who is working to improve – and who isn't.
It was in the Labour Party's manifesto that the Government intends to deliver mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for large employers – as well as disability pay gap reporting.
I welcomed this, as I have campaigned for it for so long.
Back in 2018, as Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Governance and Inclusive Leadership along with Investing in Ethnicity, we launched the Maturity Matrix to spark this type of dialogue. And I regularly called for mandatory reporting when I was a Shadow Minister.
Fast forward to earlier this year, I led a debate in Parliament about pay gaps in the workplace, to urge long overdue action. I was delighted to see that there was cross-party support for tackling the various pay gaps that exist in the workplace – and I had a clear indication that the Government is committed to acting on these issues.
I believe that now, under Labour, we have the chance to tackle pay inequality. It's another chance to show the difference a Labour Government makes.
But I want to make sure that it happens.
The Government recently held a public consultation on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, which they said would help shape the Government's policies. I urge the Government to follow through with delivering it.
Voluntary reporting, often cited as an alternative, is insufficient to tackle the problem. The truth is, the minority of bad companies will not act unless they are forced to.
What I have long proposed is that mandatory reporting should be accompanied by action plans for those companies who do report pay gaps. These action plans should set out what exactly the companies will do to address their pay gaps, to set them on the path to equality.
Because we don't just want to identify pay gaps, we want to close them. And I want to see the option of fines to be included in the regulations, for those companies who refuse to engage or close their pay gaps.
I have also long argued that Government procurement contracts (when government departments hand out contracts to deliver services) should be prioritised for companies who are paying their employees on an equal basis. Then, you incentivise progress, with those who have good practices benefitting.
The case for action is not only about fairness and equality – it has been shown that the most ethnically diverse companies are more likely to be profitable too.
Many organisations have worked on this issue and the progress made is thanks to our collective voice. GMB, my trade union, are campaigning on this with their 'Mind the ethnicity pay gap', which aims to shine a light on the disparities in pay between ethnic groups.
And there are so many others – from the #EthnicityPayGap Campaign, to UNISON, Action for Race Equality, the Runnymede Trust, ShareAction and many more. More Trending
The demand is clear, and I am convinced the consultation will have backed that up. I want to see disability pay gap reporting along the very same lines too – but that must be led by, and centred around, disabled people's voices.
There is a wealth of diverse talent across our country that is ready to flourish. All we want is better and fairer workplaces where people are paid fairly on merit.
Equality benefits everyone. So, if we get this right on gender, ethnicity, and disability, we will create a better and fairer working environment for everyone.
It's time to deliver equal pay for all.
Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing jess.austin@metro.co.uk.
Share your views in the comments below.
MORE: I always felt 'mum guilt' – then I went on a girls' trip
MORE: I dehydrate myself so I don't have to use public disabled toilets
MORE: I won't risk my safety by seeing Charli XCX at Glastonbury 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
13 minutes ago
- The Sun
Of all the harebrained schemes to smash migrant smugglers, Labour's new One In One Out plan is worst of all – here's why
HOME SECRETARY Yvette Cooper has a new plan to stop the migrants flooding into this country but is not going to tell you about it. It isn't about the numbers. They're calling the plan One-in, One-out but that isn't about the numbers, either. 4 4 More than 25,400 illegal migrants have crossed the Channel this year alone — 50 per cent more than last year — but that's not about the numbers, apparently. Ms Cooper isn't inclined to even reveal how many of them will be sent back to France under the new scheme, because to do so would only aid the people smugglers, or so she claims. Yesterday we had the rather ludicrous launch of a new policy that doesn't even do what it says on the tin. The Government's hope that this gimmick — for that is plainly what it is — will convince anyone the vile people-smuggling gangs will simply give up trafficking their lucrative quarries is wildly deluded. Taxpayer's expense Any examination of the new system makes it immediately obvious that there is no chance of it working. The Home Secretary said yesterday that, as of this week, migrants arriving illegally on to our shores will be detained then returned to France. Ms Cooper said detained 'within days' and returned 'within weeks'. But how, exactly? It was what she didn't say that was of far more interest. For example, where will they be detained? As far as we know, there are no workable detention centres anywhere near Dover. Small boat migrant found dead riddled with bullets on French coast after being gunned down 'by people smugglers' And Manston, the current holding area 20 miles away, is already over capacity. Ms Cooper has not volunteered any information as to where the arrivals will go. Neither has she suggested how long they will be held in detention, whether they will go through a court process or, indeed, whether they will be able to access legal services at the taxpayer's expense. As if all that wasn't bad enough, there is simply no explanation at all of how the migrants will be 'returned'. Will they all be packed into the back of a lorry? Will Border Force take them back to France on their boats? Or will it be down to the RNLI? One-in, One-out, it may be called, but not one clue is being given as to its likely success Perhaps the migrants will be put on the Eurostar or flown out of the country on one of those chartered jets. You might as well throw a dice or toss a coin. One-in, One-out, it may be called, but not one clue is being given as to its likely success. The Home Secretary has conceded there 'might' be legal challenges in some cases. So it's then back to the old right to a family life, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The public, of course, are under no illusions. 4 4 My listeners and readers gave me their verdict about all this yesterday. 'If it's 50,000 in and 50,000 out, they get replaced by another 50,000, so it's still 50,000 more,' said one wise caller. Despite Ms Cooper's claim that this is not about the numbers, the increasingly frustrated and fed-up citizens of this country are very clear that it is. She has conceded that only about 50 migrants will be exchanged per week in the initial pilot stage of the programme — which is due to run for only 11 months. That represents just one in 17 of the current small-boat arrivals on to our shores. And so, obviously, the numbers do matter. Ms Cooper says that the replacement migrants will be fully documented and legitimised. In effect, they will qualify to come and live here because they can prove who they are and that they have family here. Does she really think that system won't be abused? Asylum seekers in France can now apply online to come to Britain. So, you can only imagine the numbers that will flock to the French coast in the hopes of a successful application. In one fell swoop, the Government has taken away the risk of dying in the Channel — instead encouraging the migrants to fill out a form. Harebrained schemes And who will assess the suitability of the applicants? Will a family of four from Libya get precedence over two teenage brothers from Eritrea? And if their application is successful, where will they live? A migrant hotel? Social housing? An army camp? Of all the harebrained schemes to smash the gangs, stop the boats, fix the system and secure our borders — yes, Sir Keir Starmer has promised to do all four — this is perhaps the worst of all. It brings yet more people into the country with no perceived skills or reason to be here. It adds fuel to an already tense situation, up and down the country. And it will almost certainly fail to do what it is meant to do. Aside from that, it'll cost more billions of pounds of our money. I'm not in. I'm out.


Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Farming burden has ‘crossed the threshold', Badenoch warns
Speaking to farmers in her North West Essex constituency, the Conservative Party leader criticised 'constant Government saying, 'You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't move forwards''. Mrs Badenoch tried her hand at harvesting wheat during her visit to a farm in Little Walden, driving a Claas Lexion combine harvester with farmer Sam Goddard. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch and farmer Sam Goddard (Stefan Rousseau/PA) She told Mr Goddard: 'I am very keen to find out more and more about what this year has been like and about how we're actually going to do the harvest.' Looking at the machine, the MP for North West Essex added: 'It's a lot more complicated than I assumed.' Replacing his machine like-for-like would cost around £400,000, but more up-to-date models would probably be more expensive, Mr Goddard said. Taking questions from farmers about changes to the agricultural property relief from inheritance tax, Mrs Badenoch said that the Government was 'not going to get tax from farms that don't exist'. From April 2026, farmers who previously did not have to pay inheritance tax on their agricultural property will only be able to pass on up to £1 million without facing a bill. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch sits in the cab of a combine harvester during her visit to Hall Farm in Little Walden, Essex (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Beyond this threshold, they face a new effective rate of 20%. Fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has projected this change, along with a similar change to business property relief, will raise around £0.5 billion for the Treasury by 2027/28. 'If you force people to give up or sell off, then you don't get anything at all,' Mrs Badenoch warned. 'And the bottom line is, this whole argument is because some people do not understand the difference between assets and income, and that just because you have an asset that's worth a lot, it doesn't mean that there's lots of money coming in to tax.' The Leader of the Opposition added that businesses 'need a different tax regime', and continued: 'A lot of farming just feels like constant interference. 'Everything is interfered from the minute you wake up.' Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch speaks to farmers during her visit to Hall Farm in Little Walden, Essex (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Examples of interference included 'chemicals and insecticide, people you're hiring, how much you've got to pay them', plus changes to 'employers' NI (national insurance), then somebody wants to put pylons on, there's compulsory purchase, it's impacting the cost of the land, if you want to add a new farm building, there's planning applications', she said. 'It's just endless constant Government saying, 'You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't move forwards'. 'And the burden in my view has now crossed the threshold.'

Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
Farming burden has ‘crossed the threshold', Badenoch warns
Speaking to farmers in her North West Essex constituency, the Conservative Party leader criticised 'constant Government saying, 'You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't move forwards''. Mrs Badenoch tried her hand at harvesting wheat during her visit to a farm in Little Walden, driving a Claas Lexion combine harvester with farmer Sam Goddard. She told Mr Goddard: 'I am very keen to find out more and more about what this year has been like and about how we're actually going to do the harvest.' Looking at the machine, the MP for North West Essex added: 'It's a lot more complicated than I assumed.' Replacing his machine like-for-like would cost around £400,000, but more up-to-date models would probably be more expensive, Mr Goddard said. Taking questions from farmers about changes to the agricultural property relief from inheritance tax, Mrs Badenoch said that the Government was 'not going to get tax from farms that don't exist'. From April 2026, farmers who previously did not have to pay inheritance tax on their agricultural property will only be able to pass on up to £1 million without facing a bill. Beyond this threshold, they face a new effective rate of 20%. Fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has projected this change, along with a similar change to business property relief, will raise around £0.5 billion for the Treasury by 2027/28. 'If you force people to give up or sell off, then you don't get anything at all,' Mrs Badenoch warned. 'And the bottom line is, this whole argument is because some people do not understand the difference between assets and income, and that just because you have an asset that's worth a lot, it doesn't mean that there's lots of money coming in to tax.' The Leader of the Opposition added that businesses 'need a different tax regime', and continued: 'A lot of farming just feels like constant interference. 'Everything is interfered from the minute you wake up.' Examples of interference included 'chemicals and insecticide, people you're hiring, how much you've got to pay them', plus changes to 'employers' NI (national insurance), then somebody wants to put pylons on, there's compulsory purchase, it's impacting the cost of the land, if you want to add a new farm building, there's planning applications', she said. 'It's just endless constant Government saying, 'You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't move forwards'. 'And the burden in my view has now crossed the threshold.'