Women close the pay gap

The gap between pay rates for men and women has narrowed to a record low but inequality between rich and poor has continued to widen, new figures showed yesterday.

The Office for National Statistics said its survey of pay showed that gross weekly pay of all workers rose 4.7% in the year to April to £422. Within that, however, men's pay rose 4.3% to £462 a week while women's pay jumped 5.1% to £358 a week.

Annual salaries, worked out on a slightly different basis, rose to a median of £22,060 for full-time employees, with men's salaries up 3.8% to an average of £24,326 while women's salaries rose 5.3% to £18,531. That means women's pay rose to 85.6% of men's from 85.4% in 2003. Trade unions welcomed the narrowing of the gap but said it remained too big.

"The pay gap between men and women is too wide. Women still face discrimination in the workplace. Progress will only be made once employers are made to take responsibility for demonstrating that they do not discriminate," said Derek Simpson, head of engineering union Amicus.

The ONS stressed, however, that its figures did not necessarily indicate different levels of pay for comparable jobs. Pay medians, it said, are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations and their length of time in jobs.

The figures are also affected by the fact that men work on average two hours a week more than women.

Pay grew fastest in the north-east, at 7.1% and Northern Ireland, at 6.6%, while the east Midlands saw the lowest pay rises of 2.8%. Pay in London rose 4.6%, roughly in line with the national average.

The ONS report also showed inequality continuing to widen in spite of the government's pledge to reduce it. The pay of the richest 10% of earners rose 4.3% in the year to April to £825 a week - nearly double the average of £422 a week while the pay of the poorest 10% rose only 4.1% to £230 a week,.

The ONS said that the numbers of people earning less than the minimum wage of £4.50 an hour came to 272,000 in the spring of this year, representing 1.1% of total of jobs.

While a change in the calculation method made direct comparison difficult, it said 250,000 had been below minimum wage in 2003. The figures did not necessarily mean employers were flouting the law because apprentices were exempt from minimum wage rules, it added.