EMPLOYMENT EXEMPTION ORDER (Hansard, 18 June 1975)

§ Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope I am in order in inviting the House to join me in congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on the honorary Doctorate of Law recently conferred on you by the university in my constituency.

§ Mr. Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I am not quite certain how that comes under the heading "Employment exemption order".

§ Mr. Lane
I was trying to relate it in my next sentence, because it happens that in Cambridge University, and possibly in other places also, there is concern that in one particular respect the Bill may have an effect contrary to what is intended, unless it is made slightly more flexible in the way that the clause is intended to achieve.
The central purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to increase employment opportunities for women. The objective of the authorities of Cambridge University, and possibly other educational establishments, is precisely the same—that is, to widen opportunities for employment for women in academic posts; 1448 but the fear is that they will be unable to do so in the years immediately ahead because the Bill will be too rigid in its application.
To explain the background, this is a problem on which the colleges in Cambridge have been in touch with the Department for some time. It was discussed briefly in Standing Committee on 6th May—columns 258 onwards. There was subsequently a meeting at the Department which my constituents greatly appreciated, and I have now had a letter from the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), giving the Government's latest view. But the arguments in the hon. Member's letter are not convincing, and I believe that the Government are still not facing up to the main concern here—the aim to have a balance of the sexes in the teaching and tutorial staff during the transitional period while many colleges in the university, which were previously single-sex colleges, are going co-residential.
I do not want to go into detail as I did in Standing Committee, although I stick to all the points I made there. Summarising briefly, most academic posts in the colleges in Cambridge, and possibly other universities, are covered by the employment provisions of the Bill, but they are not at present covered by any of the exceptions in Clause 7. In other words, no discrimination in either direction is to be permitted. The main problem arises in former single-sex colleges in the process of becoming coeducational. The policy in Cambridge is that these colleges should be free to aim at a balance of the sexes among their senior members as well as their junior members, and this seems a commonsense objective which I do not think anyone here would dispute.
Experience has shown that it is not possible to achieve this balance at the senior level through open competition, because the pool—if I may use that expression—of suitably qualified women for teaching and research posts is, regrettably, limited. As a consequence, the Bill, if it is not amended, would tend to freeze the present imbalance until such time, in the fairly distant future, as the improvement of the educational and social opportunities for women has considerably expanded the pool. This 1449 "freezing" situation would surely contradict the basic co-educational aims of the Bill, which all of us, I think, totally support.
So I am urging that an exception should be introduced which would enable men's colleges—and I emphasise men's colleges—turning co-educational to discriminate in favour of women for a limited period. The solution I propose in the clause is to import into the area of employment covered by the Bill a provision similar to Clause 27, which deals with the area of admission of pupils during a similar transitional period.
I think that the drafting and effect of the clause are clear. It is narrowly drawn to deal with what is admittedly a narrow problem, on a transitional basis and with ample safeguards written in. To some extent, too, it follows the American model anti-discrimination Act.
Possibly the Government are nervous about agreeing even to this slight increase in flexibility. They may fear that if they admit a new exception in this case, others may press for similar exceptions or, indeed, take advantage of this one. But if there are parallel situations to the one that I have described outside education, where it may be in practice difficult to get a fair balance of the sexes without transitional scope for discrimination in favour of women, I urge the Government to consider more exceptions to cover those situations, too.
I hope that the Government will accept my clause. If they will not or if they see drafting difficulties, I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to look further into this genuine worry before the Bill is considered in another place.
We shall miss the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, who was always very courteous inside and outside this House in dealing with problems in education, even if we did not always agree with him. In welcoming the hon. Lady, I look forward to a sympathetic reply from her and the fullest undertakings that she can give me.

§ Mr. Greville Janner
I venture to intervene, although I have not achieved a doctorate in that university, but only a mere Bachelor of Arts plus a small sum 1450 of money—hence what the Americans call "a master's", which is very impressive.
I have always believed it right in an education establishment or anywhere else to pick the best candidate for any job. If there is no woman candidate good enough, then no woman will get the job. On the other hand, if there is a woman who is good enough, she should get the job. There is no "reasonable balance" in respect of the sexes. What is reasonable always depends on who happens to hold the scales.
I suggest that at a university or anywhere else the time has come for applicants for jobs to be treated on their merits. There is no reason why there should be an interim period. The great universities which are advancing in introducing women into the men's colleges slowly, but surely and effectively, should do so as speedily as possible in the realms of the top table and the upper crust. There is no need for an interim period or for a reasonable balance. From here on, the best person to apply should get the job. To quote the curious words of the margin note to Clause 7, there should be an exception only where sex is a genuine occupational qualification. I have not heard before that sex is a genuine occupational qualification for being a don.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for what they have said. I have had dealings in the past with the hon. Member for Cambridge. I hope that he will find me as courteous and as sympathetic to what he says as he found my predecessor.
Looking back on the debate in Committee, I see that the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the report on the admission of women members of the university prepared by the Standing Sub-Committee on the Admission of Women. I have looked at the report, and I know that since then officers of my Department have discussed the matters raised in it about 1451 women on the academic stall at Cambridge with the Chairman of the Colleges' Committee and the Chairman of the Standing Sub-Committee. Careful consideration has been given to what has been said.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the argument has been advanced by the Cambridge colleges indicating clearly that their concern is with the position of Fellows. However, the hon. Gentleman's amendment applies to all the establishments set out in Clause 22. Therefore, it would apply to all schools and colleges maintained by local education authorities, to all independent schools, to special schools not maintained by local education authorities and to establishments designated by the Secretary of State as well as to universities.
We have provided in Clause 26 an exception for single-sex educational establishments, but we see no justification for single-sex staffing in a single-sex establishment. Although there may be, as is the custom, more women teachers in a girls' school and more men teachers in a boys' school, there is no educational justification for saying that girls should be taught by women or boys by men. Clause 7(1)(e) provides for the reservation for men or women of those positions providing individuals with personal services promoting their welfare or education which could most effectively be carried out by men or women. For example, it is clearly important that in a mixed school there should be a number of women teachers undertaking a pastoral role. But many subjects can be taught equally well by men or women, and we see no sound reason for attempting to establish or preserve a numerical balance between the two sexes.
I appreciate that the amendment speaks of "a reasonable balance", but this immediately raises the problem of what is "reasonable". Any form of quota would be against the spirit of the Bill.
The employment provisions of the Bill will apply to all universities. Men's colleges will not be able to discriminate against women any more than women's colleges will be able to discriminate against men. I recognise that the report of the Cambridge Standing Sub-Committee concluded: … it seems unrealistic to suppose that the men's colleges would appoint enough women 1452 to compensate for the loss of opportunities in women's colleges. This is a judgment that we respect, but, as the number of men's colleges clearly exceeds the number of women's colleges, it seems incontestable that the total employment opportunities for women in the Cambridge colleges will be widened and not diminished by the Bill.
In the light of those comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have gone into this matter in some depth and with an understanding of what he is trying to achieve. However, I hope, too, that he will feel able to withdraw his clause and accept the situation as we see it.

§ Mr. Lane
With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful for the care which has been taken by the Minister and her advisers? However, I cannot help feeling that they have still not got the real point, which concerns the transitional period.
I shall not delay the House, nor shall I seek to divide it on this clause. However, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would at least undertake to look further at this point between now and the Bill's arriving in another place. I shall be glad to meet her to discuss this matter, rather than taking up more time on the Floor of the House.

§ Miss Joan Lestor
I should be happy either in correspondence or in discussion to take up further the hon. Gentleman's point about the transitional period. I cannot give any undertaking, of course, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to pursue it further with me I shall be happy to do so.

§ Mr. Lane
On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.