Home Office is sued over ‘sexist and racist’ pay – by a white man
‘No question of confidentiality’
A SENIOR inspector of police forces who claims he is paid less because he is a white man is suing the Home Office for sex and race discrimination.
Matt Parr launched his discrimination case after learning that a black woman inspector earns more than him. He is one of only five HM Inspectors who oversee the police, and the fire and rescue services.
The former Royal Navy rear admiral has carried out dozens of reviews of forces since 2016, including a report this week accusing Scotland Yard of being more concerned with ‘restricting access’ to a damning judge-led inquiry into the ‘Nick’ VIP child sex abuse scandal than learning lessons from it.
Now a two-year pay row that has divided the watchdog can be reported for the first time after an attempt by the Home Secretary
to keep it secret was thrown out by a judge.
Mr Parr, who earns £140,000 a year, launched an employment tribunal claim in 2018 arguing that his pay is too low compared with another inspector, Wendy Williams, who does the same job for £185,000.
Miss Williams, a former chief crown prosecutor, was appointed in 2015 while Mr Parr was taken on the following year.
The Home Office has denied sex and race discrimination, insisting that Mr Parr is paid less due to a drive to reduce the Government’s outlay on salaries for senior staff.
Lawyers for the Home Secretary applied for reporting restrictions on the case to prevent details of Miss Williams’s pay negotiations and salary from being revealed.
A gagging order was made last June by an employment tribunal in London but it was later overturned.
It was then referred to a more senior judge after Priti Patel tried to hide details of pay negotiations with Miss Williams from the public.
Home Office lawyers claimed the details were confidential and that to reveal them in an open court would violate Miss Williams’s human right to privacy.
But Mr Justice Griffiths, sitting at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London, ruled this week that the full case be heard in public.
He said the principle of open justice trumped any right to confidentiality that Miss Williams had in relation to her pay negotiations.
He added: ‘In 2018, [Mr Parr] began proceedings in the employment tribunal, claiming equal pay and, further or alternatively, alleging race and sex discrimination. His named comparator is the HMI appointed before him, who is a woman of BME [black or ethnic minority] heritage.
‘The Home Secretary admits that he does “like work” within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and that he is paid less, but contends that the reason for the discrepancy in salaries, which are apparently individually negotiated for each HMI, is a pay policy which aims to reduce senior salaries.’
He continued: ‘The confidentiality alleged in this case was not a matter of any state secret or sensitive policing or public interest immunity or private discussions of public policy or anything of that sort.
‘The salaries of the respondent [Mr Parr] and of the comparator [Miss Williams] and all the HMIs were also in the public domain, so no question of confidentiality arose there.’
The case will now return to the employment tribunal for Mr Parr’s claim to be heard in full.
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services declined to comment on the case.