§ Mr. HareI beg to move, in page 7, line 7, at the end to insert:
(4) Regulations under this section may provide that, where persons of both sexes are, or are intended to be employed to work in premises to which the regulations apply, provision shall be deemed not to be suitable for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section unless it affords proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex.The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that when regulations about washing facilities are made under subsection (3) there is power to require separate accommodation to be provided for the sexes. There is a similar provision in Clause 9 (4) relating to sanitary conveniences, and, on reflection, I thought it wise to take similar powers in this Clause.
§ Mr. J. HyndI do not think that the Amendment entirely meets the case. It was strongly pointed out in Committee—and I gather that the Minister was prepared to consider the proposition favourably—that on the railways, for instance, standard conditions are laid down for these facilities in regard to whatever may be the number of employees. There is no such provision in the Bill. I maintain that if it is possible to do this in the railway regulations, and as experience has shown that it is practicable, similar provisions should be written into the Bill. I ask the Minister to give further consideration to this point.
§ Mr. HareI have gone as far as I promised to go in Committee. I am afraid that I cannot go further.
§ Mr. HannanWhy should the wording be in this negative form—
provision shall be deemed not to be suitable for the purposes of subsection (1) …"?Why cannot it be laid down that where both sexes are employed accommodation shall be separate? Can the Minister answer that simple question?
§ Mr. HareI would not attempt to go into the matter in too much detail. This wording gives the effect which I want and which, I think, the hon. Gentleman wants.
§ Amendment agreed to.