Women Could Lose Money Under Farage Equal Pay Plan

More than 3,500 Next workers won a six-year equal pay fight in 2024, and Nigel Farage’s proposed Women and Motherhood Protection Act now raises the question unions care about most: would cases like that become harder to bring?

That is the real fight beneath Reform UK’s pledge to “strengthen women’s rights”. The party says its new law would supersede the 2010 Equality Act and restore “equality before the law”; the Trades Union Congress says it could strip out the legal route that lets women challenge lower pay for different jobs of comparable value, Guardian World reported.

Farage’s equal pay pitch turns women’s rights into an election weapon

Reform UK has proposed a Women and Motherhood Protection Act days before the Makerfield byelection, where its candidate Robert Kenyon has faced criticism over alleged past comments about women.

That timing matters. Reform is not just offering a technical rewrite of employment law. It is trying to own the language of women’s rights while promising to replace the Equality Act, the statute unions say underpins modern equal pay claims.

The clash is sharp because Reform’s language sounds protective. The party says women would keep “the right to receive the same pay for the same work”. But the TUC’s alarm is focused on a different, more powerful concept: equal pay for work of equal value.

That distinction is where the money sits.

If the law protects only identical or near-identical work, many women in female-dominated roles may struggle to compare their pay with men doing different jobs that still require comparable skill, effort and responsibility. The Guardian source gives one concrete example: Next store staff, predominantly women, comparing themselves with warehouse employees, where just over half the staff are male.

“Let’s call this out for what it is – a smokescreen for slashing women’s rights and making life harder for families,” said Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC.

The equal value test is the part unions fear Reform would weaken

The current dispute is not about whether a woman and a man doing the same job should receive the same pay. Reform says that right would remain.

The fight is over whether women can compare different jobs when tribunals assess whether the work carries equal value. In the Next case cited by the Guardian, more than 3,500 workers won after an employment tribunal said store staff should not have been paid less than warehouse employees. Next is appealing against the judgment.

That case shows why “same work” language can be too narrow. Many equal pay disputes do not involve a woman and a man standing side by side doing identical tasks. They involve different job categories, often separated by workplace structure, grading systems, or historic assumptions about whose work deserves higher pay.

Reform’s statement, as reported by the Guardian, says equal pay law should stay focused on “genuine cases of pay discrimination” rather than “allowing courts and tribunals to determine the relative value of fundamentally different occupations”.

That phrase is doing heavy work. It suggests Reform sees equal value assessments as judicial overreach. The TUC sees them as the mechanism that makes equal pay enforceable when women’s work has been undervalued through job design rather than overt wage discrimination.

Reform’s motherhood offer does not answer the equal pay question

Reform is pairing its equal pay proposal with a pledge to extend the time limit for pregnancy and maternity unfair dismissal claims from three months to 12 months.

The party’s framing is politically direct: “new mothers should be focused on their child, not paperwork and no woman should lose her legal rights because she spent the first months of motherhood being a mum”.

That line may appeal to voters who see employment law as too procedural. But it does not resolve the central equal pay issue. A longer claim window for maternity dismissal is not the same thing as preserving equal value pay claims.

Nowak called the motherhood language patronising and said it was “galling and offensive” to ask women to be grateful for protections that have existed for half a century. His broader charge is that Reform is presenting a narrow extension in one area while threatening a larger retreat elsewhere.

The source does not include a draft bill. That limits what can be said with certainty. The legal effect would depend on the wording, especially whether Reform limits comparators, tribunal assessments, or remedies.

Farage’s earlier comments make the policy harder to separate from the politics

The proposal lands after Farage has already drawn scrutiny over women and work.

In March 2025, Farage said men are prepared to sacrifice family lives for successful careers “in a way that fewer women are”, according to the BBC. He also praised Donald Trump’s push to scrap DEI policies and said Reform could “do with more female figures”, but would get them “through merit”.

The BBC also cited a YouGov poll from January showing 30% of men and 19% of women would vote for Reform in a hypothetical general election. That gender gap gives Reform a clear incentive to soften its image with female voters.

The Makerfield context intensifies that pressure. The Guardian reports that one account linked to Kenyon wrote that women can’t “ref, drive or give directions” and stated: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.” Kenyon has admitted making “crass comments” about Carol Vorderman. Farage has downplayed the comments as “laddish pub talk”.

Reform’s risk is obvious. A party cannot easily sell itself as “pro-woman, pro-mother and pro-family” while unions argue its employment law plan would make some women poorer.

For readers following how political theatre can obscure hard policy consequences, XOOMAR has seen similar image-versus-substance dynamics in other global political fights, including Trump Plants UFC Cage on White House Lawn for Power Play and Trump Iran Ceasefire Traps Netanyahu Before Election. The lesson is not that the cases are alike. It is that symbolism often arrives before the bill text.

The next fight is over the missing legal wording

The most important document now is the one Reform has not yet supplied in the source material: the actual draft of the Women and Motherhood Protection Act.

If the bill keeps equal value claims intact, the TUC’s sharpest warning weakens. If it narrows them, Reform will have to explain why women should trade a proven equal pay route for a promise that “same work” protection is enough.

Labour and unions are likely to keep pressing that point around Makerfield, especially because the Guardian’s Next example gives the argument a concrete form. It is not an abstract tribunal theory. It is a case involving thousands of workers and a ruling now under appeal.

The watch item is precise: whether Reform’s bill preserves the ability to compare different jobs of equal value. That single legal choice will decide whether the Women and Motherhood Protection Act is a genuine rights package or, as the TUC claims, a political rebrand for weaker equal pay law.

Impact Analysis

• The proposal could affect whether women in female-dominated jobs can compare pay with men in different but comparable roles.
• Unions warn that narrowing equal pay rights may reduce workers’ ability to recover lost wages.
• The dispute turns women’s rights and employment law into a major political issue ahead of the Makerfield byelection.