WAGES REGULATION ORDERS (Hansard, 23 April 1970)

§ Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield)
I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 31, after 'instrument', insert: 'coming into operation not later than five months after the date of the Court's decision'. Subsection (1) says: Where a wages regulation order made before or after the commencement of this Act contains any provision applying specifically to men only or to women only, the order may be referred by the Secretary of State to the Industrial Court for a declaration as to the amendments required to it under Clause 3 to eliminate discrimination, and, when the court has decided what amendments are required, the Secretary of State can make an order giving effect to the amendments.
733 None of this is mandatory upon the Secretary of State of the day. Where a Secretary of State of the day observes that a wages regulation order infringes the principles in the Bill, there is no obligation upon him to take any action. He may refer the matter to an Industrial Court, but he does not have to do so. Even when the court has declared what amendments are necessary, the Secretary of State still does not have to make an order giving effect to those Amendments: the Secretary of State may, but he may also be idle.
Secretaries of State can find it politically expedient to appear to be active, to give all the appearance of bustle, with the effect of sloth. I do not impute sloth to the right hon. Lady. She is a most energetic Secretary of State. As the Bill is drafted, a Secretary of State could send a wages regulation order, or orders galore, to an Industrial Court and then conveniently forget to follow up the court's finding.
One of the more interesting features of the Bill is that an order made by the Secretary of State requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The Bill will not become fully effective until 1975 at the earliest. Some hon. Members will not be here then. None of us now here can or ought to think that we can judge all the circumstances of the House in 1980 by the standard of 1970. Imagine, for example, the discussions that could take place between the Patronage Secretary of that day and the Leader of the House of that day to find parliamentary time to discuss an order with perhaps an obstructive but tiny minority determined to hold up business for reasons totally unrelated to the principle of equal pay, each side conscious of a Paisley shawl about their shoulders. What an inducement to lethargy upon the part of any Secretary of State of days to come.
Clause 5 evisages a completely different procedure for dealing with agricultural orders: there is to be a time limit of five months between the court's declaration and the final amending order, within which the declarations of the court must become effective. It does not require much action on the Secretary of State's part.
There is no logical reason why agricultural workers should be so particularly 734 favoured. After all, the Bill is concerned with the abolition of discrimination. Let us not have discrimination between Clauses in the Bill itself. What is sauce for Clause 5 is equally sauce for Clause 4, especially as far greater numbers of people will be affected by Clause 4 than will be affected by Clause 5.
That is the background against which I move the Amendment. It is illogical that one Clause imposes a specific time limit and allows little latitude for a future Secretary of State, whereas the provisions of Clause 4(1), which affects many more men and women, are mandatory and there is no time limit.

§ Mr. Harold Walker
I shall try to earn the gratitude of the House by making what I hope will be the shortest speech of the day and of the hon. Lady by telling her that, although I have some strong reservations about some of her arguments, we are none the less prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ Miss Quennell
I rise almost speechless with gratitude to thank the Under-Secretary for his courtesy and understanding. I regret that my argument did not have quite the force that perhaps it should have done, but I am delighted at its effect.

§ Miss Quennell
I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 37, leave out 'majority of those' and insert 'member or'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.

§ Miss Quennell
Hon. Members who contributed to yesterday's interesting and thorough debate will be familiar with the Clause, which in Committee did not receive such a thorough examination as some of the earlier Clauses. The deliberations on this Clause are contained in approximately two columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. The powers the Clause confers upon the Secretary of State of the day were not referred to on Second Reading.
The Clause means that an individual will not be entitled to ask the Secretary of State to approach an Industrial Court 735 to consider the question of any amendment to the W.R.O. Only when a majority on a wages council representing either the employers or the employees so requests is it mandatory upon the Secretary of State to refer an order to the industrial court.
The Amendments are designed to enable an individual worker to move a reference of the order to the court. I hope that I can persuade the Under-Secretary of State's warm heart to beat a little faster once again on this Amendment. The Amendment would confer a greater strength on women workers, who are in any case in a minority. As the Bill stands, they will be in a weak position when it comes to operating its provisions. I am sure that that was not the intention of the draftsmen, who must be commended on having made the Bill as clear as they have. It is a difficult Bill to draft. Some of us still think that it could perhaps be a little clearer.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that most of us look forward to the hereafter, when we shall be able to have a direct word with the Almighty about one or two little things we have noticed here. I would like to see employees, male and female, able to have a direct word with the Minister in the present, while they are still around. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look as favourably on this group of Amendments as he did on the last Amendment.

§ Mr. Harold Walker
I will try to surpass my previous performance. If I gave the hon. Lady pleasure then, I am sure that she has good reason for delight now in that she has not only brought off a double but has killed six in one go this time. I am prepared to accept the whole batch of her Amendments as a measure of her persuasiveness.

§ Mr. Robert Carr (Mitcham)
We must be making history. Never before can an Opposition have put forward such good Amendments so persuasively, or the Government been in such a reasonable mood to listen to them. We should like to mark our gratitude.

§ Miss Quennell
I thank the Under-Secretary of State. I had no idea that I was quite so good at skittles. I have a nasty feeling that there is probably a 736 live pig as first prize to take home tonight.