HC Deb 26 July 1963 vol 681 cc1987-8

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 22, leave out: or are intended to be".

Mr. Whitelaw

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps this Amendment is best explained if I first state the purpose of subsection (4) of Clause 9. This is to enable the Minister by regulation to require separate sanitary accommodation for the sexes. When the Bill left this House, the subsection stated that where persons of both sexes were, or were intended to be, employed to work on the premises, the facilities would not be deemed to be suitable unless separate accommodation was afforded for persons of each sex.

We have thought this over and we do not think that it would be possible to enforce a provision of the regulations in cases where the employer merely had the intention of employing both sexes at some date in the future. In our view these words are unnecessary and as a result of an Amendment in another place they were left out.

The Amendment has no effect on any obligations which may be imposed by regulations under subsection (4) to provide separate accommodation when both sexes are actually in employment.

Question put and agreed to.