CODES OF PRACTICE, GUIDELINES AND RULES OF PRACTICE

HC Deb 18 June 1975 vol 893 cc1452-67

(1) The Commissison may issue codes of practice containing such practical guidance as the Commission thinks fit for the purpose of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Commission shall in one or more codes of practice, guidelines or rules of practice provide practical guidance on the following matters, that is to say—

1. (a) the steps which employers may take so as to prevent acts of discrimination by their employees;
2. (b) the content of advertisements, so as to avoid the publication of discriminatory advertisements under section 35 above;
3. (c) the steps by which bodies responsible for educational establishments (as set out in section 22 above) may avoid discriminatory practices and prevent acts of discrimination in their establishments;
4. (d) the use and presentation of printed, audio and visual materials that tend to discriminate between the sexes to the detriment of either sex.

(3) When the Commission proposes to issue a code of practice, it shall prepare and publish a draft of that code, shall consider any representations made to it about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.

(4) If the Commission determines to proceed with the draft, it may thereupon issue the draft as a code of practice with recommendatory effect.

(5) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings; but in any proceedings brought under this Act any code of practice issued under this section shall be admissible in evidence, and if any provision of such a code appears to the tribunal or court to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.

(6) If the Commission wishes the draft to have a binding effect, it shall after a period of no less than six months from the date of publication of the draft as a Code of Practice, transmit the draft as Rules of Practice to the Secretary of State who shall, if he approves of it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament.

(7) If within the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft is laid before each House of Parliament, or, if such copies are laid on different days, whichever is the later of the two days, either House so resolves no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the laying before Parliament of a new draft.

(8) In reckoning the period of forty days referred to in subsection (7) above, no account shall be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(9) If no such resolution is passed as is referred to in subsection (7) above, the Commission shall issue the Rules in the form of the draft and the Rules shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.

(10) An order under subsection (9) above may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the Rules of Practice thereby brought into operation.

(11) The Commission may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a Code of Practice or Rules of Practice issued under this section and issue that revised Code or revised Rules, and subsections (3) to (10) above shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised Code or revised Rules as they apply to the first issue of a Code or Rules.—[Miss Richardson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Jo Richardson (Barking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Much was said in Committee about the need to try to change the Bill in various aspects and about how we should seek by the Bill to change the existing attitudes towards women and the conditioning to which women have always been subjected, and always seem to be subjected from birth, that their rôle is one thing and that the male rôle is another.

The Bill goes some way towards setting certain legal guidelines, but I should like the Government to accept that we ought to go somewhat further. Therefore, I propose that we should insert a clause laying upon the Equal Opportunities Commission the duty to devise codes of practice, guidelines and rules of practice.

Mr. Greville Janner

The amendment provides that the commission "may issue codes of practice" and gives it power to do so. The requirement strengthens my hon. Friend's case very much.

Miss Richardson

I thank my hon. and learned Friend very much. We need correction on these matters. This is such a lawyers' bill that it is difficult to see one's way through it. I shall try to avoid the same trap.

I want to go further and give the commission the right to issue codes of practice and I would hope that it would take advantage of that right. I want it to have a look at the four matters listed in the clause. I want it, for example, to consider providing guidance on the steps which employers may take so as to prevent acts of discrimination by their employees". I want it to issue guidance on the content of advertisements, so as to avoid the publication of discriminatory advertisements under section 35 above"; also on the steps by which bodies responsible for educational establishments (as set out in section 22 above) may avoid discriminatory practices and prevent acts of discrimination in their establishments"; and on: the use and presentation of printed, audio and visual materials that tend to discriminate between the sexes to the detriment of either sex". Under both the guidelines and the rules of practice of the Equal Opportunities Commission it would be obliged, before taking any action to publish the draft, to consult any interested parties and get their comments and observations and take these into account.

This would affect many employers and many bodies responsible for educational establishments, and those who are responsible also for providing goods, facilities and services; and also let us not forget such things as newspapers which, as we see every day, often tend to classify, by columns of advertisements, sex distinction. After the passage of this Bill they will be uncertain as to what might or might not constitute an unlawful act. It is, therefore, right and proper and only fair that they should receive guidance, and the EOC is the proper body to give it. In doing so the EOC will, in my opinion, be fulfilling its strategic rôle in carrying out the provisions of this Bill.

There is some interesting information on this question of guidelines which some hon. Members may have read in the Department of Employment Manpower Paper No. 12, "Women and Work, Overseas Practice", which lays down guidelines, issued and brought up to date in 1972 by the United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Those guidelines cover very specifically a number of fields including such things as making it unlawful to have separate lines of progression and separate seniority systems in firms, discrimination against married women, and so on. There is a whole list of these in this booklet.

Following the issue of those guidelines some individual firms in the United States have themselves issued guidelines. For example, the firm of McGraw-Hill, the book publishing company, has issued guidelies for its authors and staff members about the kind of language which ought to be used, not only so that they live within the law but also so that they recondition the public in how women should be thought of. It lists, for example, that instead of saying "Johnnie is a smart lawyer and his wife Betty is a striking brunette" they should say "Johnnie is a shrewd lawyer and Betty is a brilliant musician", or should use, in describing a couple, some phrase which does not divide the sexes in the way they are so frequently divided today. We can take a lesson from what the AEOC has done.

Mr. Dudley Smith

Does the hon. Lady realise that it is rather more important in the United States because the law that she is discussing also governs racial discrimination?

Miss Richardson

That is perfectly true, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to that. Nevertheless, it is important in this country, too. It is important that we should try to lay down guidelines as well so that we can start reconditioning on racial lines as well. I would be in favour of that.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept that this new clause could be a very important one which could considerably strengthen the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission and would help in the underlying purpose which, I hope, the Government have.

Mr. Greville Janner

May I first apologise to my hon. Friend for my intervention? It was intended to be helpful, because I regard this as a most sensible and useful clause in the direction of the mainstream of the kind of approach in many measures which have recently gone through the House, starting with the Highway Code, breach of which is not a breach of either criminal or civil law but may lead to a person who has broken it finding the code quoted against him in evidence. Then there was the Code of Industrial Relations Practice which is still effective and most useful in industrial tribunals in disputes over unfair dismissal, and which may be replaced by similar codes produced by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and its Council to be brought in under the Employment Protection Bill. Again, and finally, there are further codes, of which there are three in existence, relating to noise, lead, and vinyl chloride under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. There will be others.

This guidance goes a little further. It has a little power behind it because it may be quoted in evidence. It is not a new regulation breach of which could lead to prosecution. It is a useful form of help with some muscle provided by people whose job it is to look into the real problem. This is a sensible, helpful approach, and I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate she will find some way, if not to include this clause precisely in its present wording to provide at least a similar clause allowing the new commission to provide codes of practice and giving it power to do so, even if it is a power which is used sparingly.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)

I do not wish to take up time on the new clause because I have no doubt that it will not be accepted. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to allow it to pass without some questioning and without some reflection on its desirability. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said it would be merely mandatory. That was not his word but that is what he meant. I see in subsection (6) that there is some reference to its having binding effect after being laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses.

In so far as the proposed guidance is related to offences under the Act one can see that this would be a mere gloss, and while I would object to the Act altogether and would regret that, those who accept the main policy of the Act would not see any particular objection. But this proposal goes a good deal further than that. It refers to: the use and presentation of printed, audio and visual materials that tend to discriminate between the sexes…". In moving the amendment the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) referred to the practice of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in the United States, which had apparently persuaded one large publishing firm to request its authors to use certain language and certain attitudes. I believe that this is a most dangerous and, indeed, evil incursion by legislative bodies into the fields of individual behaviour in the hold- ing of individual opinions and artistic expression, according to the individual opinion of the author or artist. It is not the business of the British Parliament to prescribe attitudes to artists, even in a recommendatory form, still less a form which can be given in evidence in court and might in certain circumstances be binding.

If the hon. Lady gives this some thought she will see that what she is proposing is a form of authorised brainwashing. She does not like certain attitudes which a great many people hold. So she proposes to use the power of the legislature and public money to alter those attitudes to those of which she approves. The changing of attitudes is not a matter for legislature. It is a matter for the free flow and interplay of human thought. It moves along gradually.

The idea that existing attitudes are due to some evil period in human history and that we shall return to a golden age as a result of these recommendations is nonsense. These attitudes are not due to a cycle of deprivation. They are attitudes which have developed gradually throughout the development of the human race. It is not for me at this point to argue whether they are right or wrong. I merely make the point that this is how they have come about. It is absolutely wrong to use legislative proposals and taxpayers' money to try to limit, control, twist or pervert the expression of opinion, literal or visual, by such means.

Mrs. Colquhoun

I find myself in the uneasy situation of being in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) who mentioned at the beginning of his comments that the new clause was not likely to be accepted by the Government. It is not possible for an hon. Member to have sat on the Committee dealing with this Bill and to have failed to realise that the Government were incapable of accepting responsible and well thought out amendments. I am interested to see whether on the Floor of the House the Government are capable of accepting logical and reasonable amendments. I fear that they are not.

The Government's attitude does not mean that we back benchers should not be prepared to fight and fight again for what we believe in. We believe in making this a better Bill in many ways. We want to make it less of shabby window-dressing for this hideous International Women's Year to which the Government have devoted themselves and through which, in the last analysis, they will let down the ordinary working women of the nation.

I am glad that my friend Betty Lockwood has been appointed chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. This gives me much more hope than I initially had. We did not know whom the Government would appoint. It has been a great relief to Labour women to know that we have someone there who genuinely cares about other women. Nevertheless, the Government ought to be ashamed about the number of first-rate amendments and ideas they have constantly turned down.

This clause deals with guidelines and practice, and, although it may look bureaucratic at first sight, it contains a lot of good common sense. The EOC should be able to lay down guidelines. My only fear has to do with how the lawyers will interpret them, with respect to those lawyers who are Members of the House.

I draw the attention of the House to something of some importance which ought to be included in the Bill and which is not. I refer to the question of sexual orientation and the kind of discrimination that society dredges up. I particularly refer the House to subsection 2(c) of the clause dealing with the steps by which bodies responsible for educational establishments … may avoid discriminatory practices and prevent acts of discrimination in their etablishments. I have recently been dealing with a case of discrimination against a young midwife in Milton Keynes. She had been precluded from following through a course of further education and training on the grounds that she was homosexual. That is the kind of case with which this Bill should have dealt very firmly. It is hypocritical that society in 1975 should say that anyone's sexual habits have anything whatever to do with ability to do his or her job or to be trained. I was glad to receive a letter from the chairman of the Buckinghamshire Area Health Authority confirming that as an authority we affirmed that our policy is one of no discrimination against homosexuals in employment". This is a perfectly proper attitude for an area health authority to take and it is important that it should have been said.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Is the hon. Lady seriously arguing that sexual orientation is irrelevant and that there is no objection to the employment of a homosexual as a master in a boys' preparatory school?

Mrs. Colquhoun

We must refer the hon. and learned Member as the first case study to the Equal Opportunities Commission so that his hidden orientation can be revealed, probably by a psychologist.

I do not wish to continue to try to add to the Bill something that has been left out. I did want it recorded in the Official Report that it is important for there to be a change in attitude in society on these matters. There should be much less hypocrisy. I wanted to make the point very clearly that I am not only fed up with the Labour Government and their Sex Discrimination Bill but I am also utterly disappointed by their inability to bring any new and radical thinking to women's role in society. In their woolly-minded, waffly way they believe that they are doing so when they are doing nothing of the kind. In the last analysis, what they will do is alienate women outside this House. Politicians will once again be revealed for the hypocrites that they sometimes tend to be.

Mr. Dudley Smith

The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) must be aware that her castigation of the Government will be echoed by a large number of people in and out of this House. As I said earlier, I did not have the advantage of being a member of the Committee dealing with this Bill. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Lady's point about hon. Members putting forward a number of useful amendments—not necessarily this one—which are rejected by the Government. It is too much of a common practice for Governments to reject wholesale useful amendments put forward in Committee. This reduces the proceedings to a farce. I hope that in future all Governments will pay more heed to useful amendments.

That is not to say that I support this new clause. Codes of practice are very much in vogue these days. I plead guilty, as must many members of the Opposition, to being responsible for trying to implement a number of codes of practice when I was a member of the last Conservative Government. There is a danger that we can have too many codes. They impose a burden on those who have to implement legislation. In my view the Bill is a code of practice for those who will have to work it.

6.30 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) spoke earlier about educational concern in Cambridge. I am sure that educationists are very interested in the Bill and how they will deal with its concept. Presumably, the advertising and newspaper industries are considering the Bill's implications so that they will know how to advise their members. I should be surprised if many responsible worthwile sectors in our public life were not already drawing up their own codes of practice about how they should meet this part of the Bill.

Mr. Greville Janner

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the importance of a code of practice, as opposed to a law or a regulation, is that it does not have the effect of enabling a person to be punished for a breach, but it can be used against him in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal? The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is a code of practice. If he means that it will change the atmosphere, that is right, but if he means that it is a code of practice, it is not a technicality to point out to him that the amendment attempts to introduce a code of practice in the technical sense of that term, to enable guidance to be given in a form which can be enforced, rather than a mere recommendation, and otherwise than through a criminal penalty.

Mr. Smith

I appreciate that point of view. However, one of the points I was making was that, even without the code being flouted by a criminal act, we could have too many codes of practice. Some, which have already been implemented in our law, deal specifically with rigid, technical subjects—for example, noise and industry. Indeed, there is the code of practice in the Industrial Relations Act which we recently brought forward.

I believe that the canvas in this case is far too wide for a uniform code of practice to apply to all the various sectors mentioned by the hon. Lady. One example is advertising, where the Bill would have an extremely important effect once it became law.

If it does its job properly, the commission will give guidance gratuitously anyway. I hope and believe that many sectors will be seeking their own codes of practice and giving instructions to their members and associates about how to operate under the Bill.

I can understand and appreciate some of the sentiments expressed by the supporters of the clause. I am sure that they are endeavouring to be helpful, but I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that there are undoubtedly some sinister implications which may not have been exactly understood or have come to their notice. If we are to implement something that would hamper freedom of expression, we must look at the matter seriously. There are dangers that my hon. Friends have suggested. In those circumstances I hope that the Government will not accept the clause.

Mr. Costain

The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) has expressed very clearly—

Miss Richardson

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe is not present. I represent Barking.

Mr. Greville Janner

The hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Costain

The hon. Lady expressed an opinion which has been expressed in various parts of the country. What she has overlooked is that the Bill is produced mainly so that it can be used at the next General Election to show what the Labour Party has done for the public. I am sure that the hon. Lady's wise words this afternoon helped to put the matter into perspective.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) spoke of the code of practice having no legal effect, but being used in evidence in a case. What worries me about the clause is the steps employers might take to prevent acts of discrimination by their employees. I should like the Minister to explain what the Government interpret this to mean.

There are many cases, particularly in some of the heavier industries, where employees are against employment of the other sex for many reasons. If a code of practice advises employers what they should do to stop discrimination of that kind, and their action, taken on that advice, is contrary to trade union practice and a strike follows, what advice will the code of practice give then?

There are a number of anomalies in the clause. I should like an explanation. Are the Government considering accepting the clause?

Dr. Summerskill

I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) that we have given careful consideration to the clause.

As I see it, the clause in subsections (1) to (5) suggests codes of practice with recommendatory effect, whereas in subsections (6) to (10) they have binding effect. Subsection (2) makes it mandatory on the commission to issue such codes of practice in specified areas, as opposed to subsection (1), which enables the commission to issue codes of practice.

First I should explain that, as has been recognised by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith), the commission will, if it so wishes, be able, under the Bill, to issue voluntary codes or guidelines setting out good procedures and practices. There is no need to specify this power in the Bill. Such guidelines may be quoted in proceedings but they would have no binding effect.

I am doubtful about the practicability of the clause, and whether there is a role for statutory codes in the Bill, or that the employment precedents which were cited by Opposition Members are particularly relevant.

Under the Bill the commission has statutory authority to issue codes of practice by virtue of Clauses 47 and 48, whereas in the absence of Part I in Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 the Secretary of State would not have a statutory autho- rity to issue codes of practice as respects industrial relations.

We believe that provisions such as subsection (5) of the new clause, which I believe is modelled on paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act, and Section 17 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, are of value only in relation to a provision of a code dealing either with a relatively simple question which is directly posed in the legislation—for example, whether dismissal was unfair—or another relatively simple question, whether the employers' arrangement constituted a safety risk which could be assessed by experts with a fair degree of certainty.

A code of practice for equal opportunity employers would not, however, help a court or tribunal in deciding the relevant question under the Bill, which will normally be whether the defendant who had treated a woman less favourably than a man did so on grounds of sex or on other grounds. We do not believe that a practical and workable code can be devised directed to this particular purpose. If it is the intention of the sponsors of the amendment that the commission should be able to require firms to follow the provisions in such rules of practice, the clause constitutes a marked enlargement of the non-discrimination notice procedure in our Clause 61. As this stands at present, the commission may issue a notice requiring a person not to commit an unlawful act, a breach of an equality clause or an unlawful act of the kind specified in Amendment No. 61, but not to require such a person to take other kinds of positive action. Therefore, there is a marked difference between these proposals and the proposals in the Bill.

We see difficulty in providing that any such guidance or code should have the force of law. Guidance and recommendations of this kind may he helpful in a general way, but compliance with a code of practice which is, and must be, couched in general and readily understandable terms cannot replace the need to comply with the Bill itself. It win not necessarily be true in a particular case that a person who complies with a code drafted in general terms has not carried out an act of unlawful discrimination. It would not, therefore, constitute a successful defence. Nor would the fact that someone had not complied with the code necessarily mean that he had committed an unlawful act, as defined in the Bill. There are situations in which a code of practice having statutory backing is useful, but the circumstances here are not on all fours. Those parts of the industrial relations code of guidance relating to industrial dismissals are directed to helping the tribunal to decide the crucial question, which is whether the dismissal was unfair. There is no parallel between that situation and

Division No. 239.]	AYES	[6.40 p.m.
Allaun, Frank	Hayman, Mrs Helene	Roderick, Caerwyn
Bidwell, Sydney	Heffer, Eric S.	Rooker, J. W.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Skinner, Dennis
Canavan, Dennis	Janner, Greville	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	McCartney, Hugh	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Cryer, Bob	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Madden, Max	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Edge, Geoff	Maynard, Miss Joan
English, Michael	Mikardo, Ian	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Evans, John (Newton)	Noble, Mike	Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun and
Flannery, Martin	Prescott, John	Miss Jo Richardson.
George, Bruce	Price, C. (Lewisham W)

NOES
Anderson, Donald	Fookes, Miss Janet	Mackintosh, John P.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Ford, Ben	Marks, Kenneth
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Forrester, John	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Bates, Alf	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Meacher, Michael
Beith, A. J.	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Bell, Ronald	Freud, Clement	Millan, Bruce
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.)	Gilbert, Dr John	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Ginsburg, David	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Boardman, H.	Golding, John	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Booth, Albert	Gourlay, Harry	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Graham, Ted	O'Halloran, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Ovenden, John
Bray Dr Jeremy	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Owen, Dr David
Buchan, Norman	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Paisley, Rev Ian
Buchanan, Richard	Hardy, Peter	Park, George
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Parker, John
Campbell, Ian	Hatton, Frank	Pavitt, Laurie
Cant, R. B.	Hooson, Emlyn	Pendry, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Horam, John	Penhaligon, David
Clemitson, Ivor	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Price, William (Rugby)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Cohen, Stanley	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Coleman, Donald	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Conlan, Bernard	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Roper, John
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)	Sandelson, Neville
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	John, Brynmor	Selby, Harry
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Davidson, Arthur	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Silverman, Julius
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Small, William
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Kaufman, Gerald	Spearing, Nigel
da Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Spriggs, Leslie
Delargy, Hugh	Lamborn, Harry	Stanbrook, Ivor
Dempsey, James	Lamond, James	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Doig, Peter	Lawrence, Ivan	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Dormand, J. D.	Lee, John	Stoddart, David
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Stott, Roger
Dunn, James A.	Lipton, Marcus	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Litterick, Tom	Tierney, Sydney
Ennals, David	Lomas, Kenneth	Tinn, James
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Tomlinson, John
Faulds, Andrew	McCusker, H.	Tuck, Raphael
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	McElhone, Frank	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mackenzie, Gregor	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

trying to decide whether a woman has been discriminated against on ground of sex.

The Bill is extremely comprehensive. We have given strong powers to the Equal Opportunities Commission. I cannot recommend that the House should accept the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 150.

Ward, Michael	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
White, Frank R. (Bury)	Woodall, Alec	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
White, James (Pollack)	Wrigglesworth, Ian	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)	Young, David (Bolton E)	Mr. John Ellis.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Question accordingly negatived.